Samba vs. NFS

Does anyone have have any input of any advantages of using Samba vs.
NFS to mount a shared directory ? We just want to be able to give
access to our users to access files that were created on their /home
direcoties thru programs running on the Linux server.

Thanks in advance.

new2linuxos wrote:

> Does anyone have have any input of any advantages of using Samba vs.
> NFS to mount a shared directory ? We just want to be able to give
> access to our users to access files that were created on their /home
> direcoties thru programs running on the Linux server.
>

Samba doesn't understand Linux/Unix permissions.

James Knott wrote:
> new2linuxos wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have have any input of any advantages of using Samba
vs.
> > NFS to mount a shared directory ? We just want to be able to give
> > access to our users to access files that were created on their
/home
> > direcoties thru programs running on the Linux server.
> >
>
> Samba doesn't understand Linux/Unix permissions.

Huh?

In what sense and in what sense does it matter?

A _Linux_ Samba sever is running... ummm... Linux with Linux
filesystems (and their file permissions).

Clarify?

prg

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:01:06 -0800, new2linuxos wrote:

> Does anyone have have any input of any advantages of using Samba vs.
> NFS to mount a shared directory ? We just want to be able to give
> access to our users to access files that were created on their /home
> direcoties thru programs running on the Linux server.
>
> Thanks in advance.

NFS was made for *nix - Samba was made to interface with MS - if you don't
have MS to worry about, don't use Samba.

Yes, we won't be using this for linux to linux platforms, but for linux
to windows workstations. so what I understand is that they do two
different things, can they co-exist.

thanks...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:27:06 -0800, new2linuxos wrote:

> Yes, we won't be using this for linux to linux platforms, but for linux
> to windows workstations. so what I understand is that they do two
> different things, can they co-exist.
>
> thanks...

If all you want to do is share files, NFS is probably still best. I
believe MS has free 'unix tools' which implements it.

prg wrote:

>> Samba doesn't understand Linux/Unix permissions.
>
> Huh?
>
> In what sense and in what sense does it matter?
>
> A Linux Samba sever is running... ummm... Linux with Linux
> filesystems (and their file permissions).
>
> Clarify?

Cause I said so! ;-)

Actually, I used a poor choice of works. NFS was designed as a Unix network
file system, and as such handles the user IDs etc., as though the shares
were local drives. With Samba, you have to convert to the SMB methods and
then convert back, if the other computer is also Unix or Linux. The
permission and access structure of SMB is quite different than that of NFS,
necessitating the conversion. It's always best to use native tools. i.e.
NFS for Unix and SMB for Windows.

James Knott wrote:
> prg wrote:
>
> >> Samba doesn't understand Linux/Unix permissions.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > In what sense and in what sense does it matter?
> >
> > A Linux Samba sever is running... ummm... Linux with Linux
> > filesystems (and their file permissions).
> >
> > Clarify?
>
> Cause I said so! ;-)
>
> Actually, I used a poor choice of works. NFS was designed as a Unix
network
> file system, and as such handles the user IDs etc., as though the
shares
> were local drives. With Samba, you have to convert to the SMB
methods and
> then convert back, if the other computer is also Unix or Linux. The
> permission and access structure of SMB is quite different than that
of NFS,
> necessitating the conversion. It's always best to use native tools.
i.e.
> NFS for Unix and SMB for Windows.

I was 99.999999...% sure that was what you meant. My question was more
a wink to you (for the OP's benefit).

I would not have noted it except you usually post with more "built-in"
explanation.

;-)

regards,
prg

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:53:54 -0700, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:27:06 -0800, new2linuxos wrote:
>
>> Yes, we won't be using this for linux to linux platforms, but for linux
>> to windows workstations. so what I understand is that they do two
>> different things, can they co-exist.
>>
>> thanks...
>
>If all you want to do is share files, NFS is probably still best. I
>believe MS has free 'unix tools' which implements it.

It's pretty cheesy... it looks like Microsoft wrote it. 8-)>

I'd suggest samba on the linux side.

Mike-

--
Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
--

Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam
filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded,
non-attachments.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

James Knott wrote:

> Samba doesn't understand Linux/Unix permissions.

Oh yes it does... with samba 3 you can connect over CIFS/SMB to another
*nix and relay UID/GID stuff like it was local.
This even has an added advantage in that you can do username translation
- which is harder with NFS.


--
J

Where does the shit go ?