Re: Sharing files on a local network
- From: Arno Schuring <aelschuring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:46:54 +0200
Raf Czlonka (rjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100):
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote:That depends. If you're running a wireless setup, even with WPA2
I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being
SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network.
protection, I'd still advise security.
Well, in all fairness - NFS requires that the user ids on all systemsIts easiest of all to setup. (well excepting the nautilus
IMHO, it's not - dozens of options for both the server and client.
You simply mount the NFS share and it's transparent to the system.
match. Forcing such a match can be quite troublesome.
Overhead is peanuts :)
I mean with fuse and sshfs, then it acts much the same as nfs far as
FUSE as it name suggests is in user-space, NFS is supported in the
kernel. You don't have the overhead.
No, not really. But for a home setup, convenience trumps performance.
And besides, when's the last time that your desktop machine was pegged
For the current situation, I'd advise sshfs. If it's integrated in
Nautilus, all the better. But SSH is only point-to-point -- as soon as
you're sharing files with more than 2 machines, NFS is the way to go.
My 2 cents: even for Linux-only systems, there really is no
satisfactory answer to the OP's question besides Samba/CIFS. All
(Unix-)native solutions have their roots in enterprise (managed)
networking, which implies manual setup. In terms of autodiscovery and
autoconfiguration, nothing can hold a candle to the original SMB.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Prev by Date: kvm and bonding
- Next by Date: Re: Sharing files on a local network
- Previous by thread: Re: Sharing files on a local network
- Next by thread: Re: Sharing files on a local network