On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote: > Your choices for file serving are really NFS and smb. NFSv3 is not > secure at all unless you control the client machines.
We control all the clients, it's a small, tight-knit group. > The main problem with NFSv4 and SMB home directories is that you have to > use password-based or kerberos-ticket authentication in order for the > mount to be authenticated and succeed. You cannot ssh in with an RSA > key, for example, as the mount requires credentials. That would be show stopper. How about local home directories with symbolic links back to an NFS mount for things like .bashrc and...hmm, that could get unwieldy pretty quickly. I'm thinking NFSv3 is what we might want to stick with. >> What if we don't have one server with a hard drive big enough to store >> every users home directory, but, for example, each user has a desktop >> machine with a drive plenty big enough for him self. Would it be >> foolhardy to make each workstation an nfs server and have any other >> machine you log into auto-mount your home directory on your >> workstation? > > Could work. Might be a bit complicated, though. That's what I'm afraid of. Storage is cheap these days, right? Bryan -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
