NFS vs. Samba

jdarnold · 2010-01-26 19:05:10

I have a 1tb server setup (finally!) and, as several Windows clients will be using it, I've installed Samba and it is working fine. But for my Linux clients, should I install NFS on the server? Or just install a samba client on the Linux boxes? Would my Linux boxes need an NFS install too? Which is easier/faster/better?

Cyrusm · 2010-01-26 19:08:59

maybe I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly, but if it's a linux server, can't you just use ssh/sftp/sshfs for the linux clients using it?

jdarnold · 2010-01-26 20:09:49

I'm just looking for a spot to store my movies, music and data files, and to back up to it. So I want to mount it as a network disk. And I was wondering if, in that usage scenario, adding NFS to the server and my Linux boxes was a noticeably good idea, esp. given that they all already have Samba installed to talk to the Windows boxes.

tomk · 2010-01-26 20:36:51

Server setups should be as simple as possible IMO, so just go with samba for all clients.

sand_man · 2010-01-26 21:58:59

I have both NFS and samba on my server to accommodate for both OSs.
Also, I noticed in Windows 7 there is an option to enable support for NFS. I've never used it but I just thought I'd mention it.

Troolari · 2010-01-26 23:45:07

EDIT: Wrong thread. -.-

Last edited by Troolari (2010-01-26 23:45:47)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-26 19:05:10

NFS vs. Samba

#2 2010-01-26 19:08:59

Re: NFS vs. Samba

#3 2010-01-26 20:09:49

Re: NFS vs. Samba

#4 2010-01-26 20:36:51

Re: NFS vs. Samba

#5 2010-01-26 21:58:59

Re: NFS vs. Samba

#6 2010-01-26 23:45:07

Re: NFS vs. Samba

Board footer