FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Craig White
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 10:15 -0500, Alan McKay wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> A coworker wants to share drives between CentOS systems via SAMBA,
> which sort of seems pretty counter intuitive to me. But he says he's
> had troubles in the past with NFS. He was sort of short on details,
> but something about NFS not being reliable unless you enable NFS
> locking, but when you do that, you can end up in situations where if
> the server crashes it can cause the clients to hang too.
>
> I've used NFS for years in other jobs and don't recall issues like this.
>
> Thoughts?
----
having a server crash will cause all sorts of problems for the clients
whether they are using NFS or Samba

I always set up server so that users can mount and use shares in their
native format and actually use LDAP for absolute consistency in UID and
passwords...

NFS mounts for Linux users
Samba for Windows users
Netatalk for Macintosh clients

their user id is always the same and their password is always the same.

NFS mounts via LDAP automount
Samba mounts are typically handled by 'netlogon' script
Netatalk mounts via LDAP automount

the shares, ownership, etc are always the same so even if a user moves
from Linux to Windows, he still sees the same files with the same
permissions.

You can use 'soft' NFS mounts to not hang the clients but in reality, an
NFS server should never crash and rarely be restarted.

Craig


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2009, 04:40 PM
Keith Keller
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>
> NFS mounts for Linux users
> Samba for Windows users
> Netatalk for Macintosh clients

Wow, I didn't even know netatalk was still around! How does it compare
to SMB on OS X clients? I'm thinking that, unless you have a pressing
need for some particular netatalk option, that using Samba for those
clients as well simplifies admin on the backend. IOW, what are the
scenarios where netatalk is either strongly preferred or required over
Samba?

--keith

--
kkeller@speakeasy.net

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2009, 04:54 PM
Rainer Duffner
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

Keith Keller schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>
>> NFS mounts for Linux users
>> Samba for Windows users
>> Netatalk for Macintosh clients
>>
>
> Wow, I didn't even know netatalk was still around! How does it compare
> to SMB on OS X clients? I'm thinking that, unless you have a pressing
> need for some particular netatalk option, that using Samba for those
> clients as well simplifies admin on the backend. IOW, what are the
> scenarios where netatalk is either strongly preferred or required over
> Samba?
>
>

My guess would be: Macs with OS 9 or older ;-)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2009, 06:28 PM
Craig White
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 09:40 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> >
> > NFS mounts for Linux users
> > Samba for Windows users
> > Netatalk for Macintosh clients
>
> Wow, I didn't even know netatalk was still around! How does it compare
> to SMB on OS X clients? I'm thinking that, unless you have a pressing
> need for some particular netatalk option, that using Samba for those
> clients as well simplifies admin on the backend. IOW, what are the
> scenarios where netatalk is either strongly preferred or required over
> Samba?
----
I don't recall timing checks between AFP (netatalk) and SMB (samba) but
I do recall that AFP was light years faster than NFS on the Macs when
using the Finder (but similar speeds from terminal transfers). I
gathered that there was a bunch of latency from copying files using
Finder operations on NFS mounts.

Advantages of using Netatalk instead of Samba for Macintosh clients?

- File naming... Mac users don't have to follow Windows rules for
filenames

- Spotlight searches (finally fixed I think in OSX 10.5.x)

- Dual resource fork support

- A lot less objections/critiques from Macintosh users

I didn't find it to be a whole lot of extra administrative effort to
implement. Obviously you have to compile netatalk, setup the shares,
etc. but I use the same directories, the same uid's/gid's etc. and so it
is indifferent as to which networking protocol is used to access
(NFS/SMB/AFP).

Craig


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2009, 07:22 PM
James Bensley
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

I think the file locking only causes a problem with windows clients
because of certain files types such as Access databases (.mdb) wanting
to lock the file so that other users don't open the same database and
corrupt data, for example.

--
Regards,
James

Charles de Gaulle - "The better I get to know men, the more I find
myself loving dogs." -
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_de_gaulle.html
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2009, 07:39 PM
Craig White
 
Default SAMBA vs NFS

On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:22 +0000, James Bensley wrote:
> I think the file locking only causes a problem with windows clients
> because of certain files types such as Access databases (.mdb) wanting
> to lock the file so that other users don't open the same database and
> corrupt data, for example.
----
it's advisable to disable oplocks for those files...problem solved

http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/locking.html#id2616906

Craig


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org