Is it gud?
Do you use it?
What makes it better or worse than other solutions?
Is it gud?
Other urls found in this thread:
It's old, it's tested, it's pretty much default option on unix.
For ad-hoc, grab files from other machine, scenario I find SSHFS more convenient.
For bulk file transfers - rsync
For VM - iSCSI volumes
Primary use for NFS is workgroup like scenarios, but then you often have requirement to support win/mac, forcing you to use CIFS or abortion that is AFP
At work, our users' home folders are stored on a central server and mounted locally via NFS. CIFS/SMB is only used for the handful of Windows machines.
no. "transparent" network based file systems are the most retarded thing since file systems. also every man page of every system call in Linux lists some edge case to do with NFS
why? why is that a bad idea?
He's gonna paste something from the Unix haters book soon
Its better than smb/cifs/applel but its not as good as 9P.
NFS pretty much just works except when it doesn’t, then you’re gonna have a bad time.
Wut? Because it's sounds like a compliment, like "dirtiest thing since gamma sterilized single use surgical materials".
Yes, because NFS is old and bloated, and linux syscalls are just bloated
Transparent anything is often not as good idea as it sounds due to many implicit expectations, especially once you start stacking things.
In case of fs, it's usually implicit expectations reliability and latency. While local network transparent file system (NFS use case) is works fine, file system running over internet has latency and reliability properties different enough, that "transparency" breaks, often in ugly ways.
Ah I see.
So NFS is great for LAN file sharing, but crap for use over the internet
I kinda had an idea that this was the case (just judging from how I've never seen it used that way), but thanks for explaining.
I think a system where a local FS is hosted/cached and something like ZFS incremental snapshots are sent in intervals bidirectionally, with collision resolution built-in.
*... would be a good option to 'simulate' transparent internet filesystems.
NFS is shit for multi-user environments.
I tried doing this on my home network, but browser kept shitting itself due to some arcane reasons.
I heard NFS's security is not very good.
Is there other options for 9p on linux other than github.com
Maybe it's because the browser has to save everything about your current session every second. So that your browser can restore to the exact scroll, remember the text fields, and tab history.
IIRC it was because browser uses some form of SQL database to store cache, and database relies on some fs system calls that NFS doesn't implement.
It's very fast and works well in Unixland, but Windows users lack a decent client for NFSv4. The latest Windows 10 builds sort-of work, with some registry hacks for specifying UID/GID, but its a little buggy still. I hope Windows Subsystem for Linux bridges this gap soon (though not sure how they'd do it, as NFS support is kernel reliant and goes deeper then the WSL abstraction.
Pretty sure its on the roadmap though).
Its very good for mapping between servers & storage.
eg: NAS/SAN -> server running ESX or whatever.
Its not very good at sharing to users since tries to behave like a full blown filesystem which requires a lot of privileges and locking.
For speed and usability its still pretty good.
I heard this has gotten better in recent versions, but not sure.
only reason why i use server 2012 r2 datacenter when i gotta install windows on a home machine or vm
my shitty router really hates smb for some reason, but nfs just flies (to the point no other traffic functions unless you put up a quota)
What the fuck were they thinkin-
>The VideoLan software originated as an academic project in 1996.
...this explains a lot.