NFS is more annoying on Linux than just using Samba though, at least for the NAS use case. With Samba on my server I can just browse to it in KDE's file manager Dolphin, and samba configuration is a relatively straight forward ini style file on the server. A pair of ports also need to be opened in the host firewall.
Contrast that with NFS, which last I looked needed several config files, matching account IDs between hosts, mounting as root, and would hang processes if connection was lost. At least I hear rpcbind is gone these days.
I don't think anyone sane uses NFS on Linux either these days. And it is rather funny that the protocol Microsoft invented is what stuck and became practical between Linux hosts.
For read-only access there could be way better caching, especially for common use cases like listing the contents of a filesystem directory. But stuff like this was excluded on purpose.
NFS is really stupid.
NFS made the assumption that a distributed system with over 100 times the latency of a local system could be treated like a local system in every single way.
I am not sure why this means why "NFS is really stupid" if the user assumes that a distributed file system can be treated just like a local system. That is provides the same interface is what makes NFS extremely useful.
Hence why even on UNIX people moved on from NFS, but on Linux it keeps being the remote filesystem many reach for.
NFS is more annoying on Linux than just using Samba though, at least for the NAS use case. With Samba on my server I can just browse to it in KDE's file manager Dolphin, and samba configuration is a relatively straight forward ini style file on the server. A pair of ports also need to be opened in the host firewall.
Contrast that with NFS, which last I looked needed several config files, matching account IDs between hosts, mounting as root, and would hang processes if connection was lost. At least I hear rpcbind is gone these days.
I don't think anyone sane uses NFS on Linux either these days. And it is rather funny that the protocol Microsoft invented is what stuck and became practical between Linux hosts.
NetApp has NFS support and is widely used.
2 replies →
For me it was the path of least resistance, I do use WebDAV more now since Copyparty supports it out of the box but I would be open to suggestions
Samba/SMB, Network protocols like WebDAV, S3, Docker, OneDrive,....
No, any remote system would have the same problem if one expected to use it as if it were local.
Not quite. For persistence latency, yes.
For read-only access there could be way better caching, especially for common use cases like listing the contents of a filesystem directory. But stuff like this was excluded on purpose.
NFS is really stupid.
NFS made the assumption that a distributed system with over 100 times the latency of a local system could be treated like a local system in every single way.
I am not sure why this means why "NFS is really stupid" if the user assumes that a distributed file system can be treated just like a local system. That is provides the same interface is what makes NFS extremely useful.
3 replies →
It's wasn't "NFS", it was always the users that made that mistake. NFS can be used in a proper and productive manner, but it requires adjustments.
3 replies →