Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
BTW this thread helped me a lot (I was the originator) and I agree that NFS works a lot very well. Over Gigabyte network it's looking like really a local disk behaviour. I have still troubles copying videos because the Linux desktop constantly loads the litle snapshot of the vid file it is transferring , this icon of the file that shown one of the picture of the film, and as it does constantly update this imate while transferring it really interferes and the flow is reduced to somewhat few m/s instead of approx 60 m/s when transferring normally. Kind regards J-F Le lundi 09 mars 2009 C 17:06 +0100, Felipe Alfaro Solana a C)crit : On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.dewrote: * Guillermo Bernaldo de Quiros Maraver debug...@gmail.com [2009-02-13 21:06]: if you have a shared network between WINDOWS and OpenBSD i recommend Samba if not, NFS NFS = Insecure SAMBA = Have a problems, but, it's more secure. that is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever read here in some time. Why do you exactly thing that is bullshit?
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
2009/3/13 Jean-Francois jfsimon1...@gmail.com: BTW this thread helped me a lot (I was the originator) and I agree that NFS works a lot very well. Over Gigabyte network it's looking like really a local disk behaviour. I have still troubles copying videos because the Linux desktop constantly loads the litle snapshot of the vid file it is transferring , this icon of the file that shown one of the picture of the film, and as it does constantly update this imate while transferring it really interferes and the flow is reduced to somewhat few m/s instead of approx 60 m/s when transferring normally. This sounds like a problem with your Linux GUI configuration and Linux allowing that preview generation task somehow compete with its transfer task for access to the file (not sure why; if the preview generation tried to temporarily lock the file it would sort of explain things, but why would that job try to do that?). Or maybe the Linux preview generation task is so eager to catch up with and gets so confused by the constantly changing file that it generates such an amount of load on the Linux system that this negatively impacts the transfer task. In any case, there isn't really anything OpenBSD does to cause this, nor probably anything your OpenBSD box could do to fix this. But in case you're using Nautilus/GNOME on your Linux box, you may want to look at Edit -- Preferences -- Preview in Nautilus, where you can tell it to show thumbnails for local files only, or only for files below a certain size, or not show thumbnails at all. regards, --ropers
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
2009/3/9 Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de * Guillermo Bernaldo de Quiros Maraver debug...@gmail.com [2009-02-13 21:06]: if you have a shared network between WINDOWS and OpenBSD i recommend Samba if not, NFS NFS = Insecure SAMBA = Have a problems, but, it's more secure. that is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever read here in some time. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam that is the most entertaining flame I have ever read here in some time. LOL! I'm loving your aggression man. ^_^
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
* Guillermo Bernaldo de Quiros Maraver debug...@gmail.com [2009-02-13 21:06]: if you have a shared network between WINDOWS and OpenBSD i recommend Samba if not, NFS NFS = Insecure SAMBA = Have a problems, but, it's more secure. that is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever read here in some time. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.dewrote: * Guillermo Bernaldo de Quiros Maraver debug...@gmail.com [2009-02-13 21:06]: if you have a shared network between WINDOWS and OpenBSD i recommend Samba if not, NFS NFS = Insecure SAMBA = Have a problems, but, it's more secure. that is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever read here in some time. Why do you exactly thing that is bullshit?
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:10:31 +0100 Jean-Frangois jfsimon1...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It's for sharing btw Linux / OpenBSD. Last one is server. Probably other than Linux client one day. However for Windowd there are ways to install NFS client. I'm not speaking about network bandwith limitations but about the efficiency of the protocol which sometimes might be preventing from going fast on fast networks. You want NFS. Samba is a good rework of a poorly designed protocol. Dhu About security this is an internal network for the moment but it might also be accessible from the net later on. Thanks for your advises ...
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
On Feb 13, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Jean-Frangois wrote: Hi, It's for sharing btw Linux / OpenBSD. Last one is server. Probably other than Linux client one day. However for Windowd there are ways to install NFS client. And, all of those ways suck. Sadly, to windows Samba is about the best method there is. I'm not speaking about network bandwith limitations but about the efficiency of the protocol which sometimes might be preventing from going fast on fast networks. NFS is a clear winner there. About security this is an internal network for the moment but it might also be accessible from the net later on. Make IPSec or other tunneling for the NFS packets your friend now, then. Thanks for your advises ... sorry there's no good news.
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
if you have a shared network between WINDOWS and OpenBSD i recommend Samba if not, NFS NFS = Insecure SAMBA = Have a problems, but, it's more secure. 2009/2/13, Jean-Frangois jfsimon1...@gmail.com: Hi All, I am mounting network drives. Would you recommand the use of NFS or SAMBA for home use ? For both performance and security, please advise your recommandations. Thank you. Regards, J-F
Re: NFS or SAMBA ?
Hi, It's for sharing btw Linux / OpenBSD. Last one is server. Probably other than Linux client one day. However for Windowd there are ways to install NFS client. I'm not speaking about network bandwith limitations but about the efficiency of the protocol which sometimes might be preventing from going fast on fast networks. About security this is an internal network for the moment but it might also be accessible from the net later on. Thanks for your advises ... J-F Le vendredi 13 fC)vrier 2009 C 11:59 -0800, johan beisser a C)crit : On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Jean-FranC'ois wrote: I am mounting network drives. Would you recommand the use of NFS or SAMBA for home use ? What would you be serving to? PC Boxen? MacOS X? Linux? Another OpenBSD box? Both protocols are appropriate for similar - but not entirely the same - setups. For both performance and security, please advise your recommandations. NFS is horribly insecure. By default it's just bad with little to no authentication for the user outside of standard UNIX permissions. It's fairly fast though, limited more by the capability of your network than by the protocol itself. Samba, while somewhat more secure than NFS, is very slow. While I don't like it, I do use it very heavily since it's supported by all OSs and all systems I have to interact with on the IT side of things.
