mounting sftp

sivu · 2016-12-01 00:58:50

Some time ago I experimented with network shares over ssh, odering the openssh build in sftp file service.

However after reading into the topic again the only method of mounting I found is via sshfs, which uses fuse and is therefore relatively slow.
But I am somewhat certain, that there is also another way to mount sftp which is way faster too.

Can anyone give me a hint what I am missing or whether it is possible to mount sftp without sshfs at all?

Thanks

seth · 2016-12-01 07:32:24

For an encrypted network FS, the userspace implementation is certainly not the bottleneck.
Your performance issues will be related to applications treating an sshfs mount as local filesystem (stat'ing files like hell and showing previews etc.)

KDE/plasma has a kio module ("fish://") - kiofs should know that this is a "slow" FS and therefore you can configure to avoid certain actions, but this *only* works in KDE applications (but eg. dolphin can open a file in eg. gimp by creating a local copy first)

If you just want an "insecure" remote FS, look into smb or nfs.

sivu · 2016-12-01 18:19:22

I'm actually looking for a way to use ssh mounted filesystems without fuse.

And from what I have seen sftp can be really fast too. I just don't remember how...

seth · 2016-12-01 20:44:09

sftp is "fast" because it causes virtually no traffic (unless put/get), the overhead is in the tools accessing it.
There's no magic, both use the same library/tools.

gps1539 · 2016-12-02 04:25:03

I agree with Seth on the performance part, but I wanted to add that smb can be secure (as can nfs). smb3 added end to end encryption and samba supports encryption as well.
With any encryption there will be some overhead, but it should still be faster for general file access.

Last edited by gps1539 (2016-12-02 04:26:43)

sivu · 2016-12-02 21:56:24

gps1539 wrote:

I agree with Seth on the performance part, but I wanted to add that smb can be secure (as can nfs). smb3 added end to end encryption and samba supports encryption as well.
With any encryption there will be some overhead, but it should still be faster for general file access.

Thanks for the info. However I would still prefer to use a protocol that was designed for use on insecure networks like the internet.

I remember some test about preformance smd/cifs, nfs and sftp/scp with the result that with the right tning there is not much of a difference between them.
So as long as security is a focus I would prefer sftp ofer the others.

gps1539 · 2016-12-03 03:34:24

Your choice

The I in Cifs is Internet btw.

sivu · 2016-12-03 21:48:51

gps1539 wrote:

Your choice
The I in Cifs is Internet btw.

Although the name is common internet file system, especially the early versions fail drastically in regards to security and should never be used over insecure networks without wrappers like vpn.
This is a common misunderstanding.

kokoko3k · 2016-12-04 09:35:28

I dont think you'll gain any speed by using cifs instead of sshfs.
BTW, you can secure CIFS or NFS by accessing them through an encrypted VPN
-edit
ops, you'll already mentioned it.

Last edited by kokoko3k (2016-12-04 09:36:23)

eric · 2017-02-22 17:09:25

I know I'm very late in this thread, but maybe you should look at:
https://www.psc.edu/index.php/hpn-ssh
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openssh-hpn-git/

Arch Linux

#1 2016-12-01 00:58:50

mounting sftp

#2 2016-12-01 07:32:24

Re: mounting sftp

#3 2016-12-01 18:19:22

Re: mounting sftp

#4 2016-12-01 20:44:09

Re: mounting sftp

#5 2016-12-02 04:25:03

Re: mounting sftp

#6 2016-12-02 21:56:24

Re: mounting sftp

#7 2016-12-03 03:34:24

Re: mounting sftp

#8 2016-12-03 21:48:51

Re: mounting sftp

#9 2016-12-04 09:35:28

Re: mounting sftp

#10 2017-02-22 17:09:25

Re: mounting sftp

Board footer