Samba vs. NFS

[Preston Crawford]

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 10:17, listas at lozano.eti.br wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > What is the convention wisdom with respect to Linux clients/Linux
> > server? NFS, SMB, both?
> > 
> > Samba SEEMS to provide better throughput yes? NFS presumably uses fewer
> > resources/cycles?
> 
> Samba does not know about Posix uids/gids and permission bits (that is, all the
> info on ls -l). That's the reason NFS is better if the server and client are
> all Linux, FreeBSD or other Unix variants.
> 
> It IS possible to use samba for, say, home directories or application
> directories, but you would'nt be able to store there set-uid executables or
> share files with other users (unless you make them world-readable or
> worl-writable).

I ended up going with Samba because I couldn't figure out how to open up
my firewall (yes, I use a firewall on my desktop even though I'm behind
one of those D-Link cable modem routers) to open ports correctly to let
NFS through. I'm not sure what's worse. To turn off my firewall
completely or to use Samba because getting it to work through my
firewall was easier.

Preston