RE: Samba vs NFS
From: net shark (netshark_at_sexmagnet.com)
Date: 02/22/05
- Previous message: Michael Bartosh (local Account): "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- In reply to: Ryan Nowakowski: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Next in thread: Frank Burkhardt: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Reply: Frank Burkhardt: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: <focus-linux@securityfocus.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:43:07 -0000
IMHO both have a dark history when it comes to security. In the old days NFS
was a nightmare; in recent years samba has shown more holes, especially
serious remote buffer overflows, which lead to root compromise.
From the performance point of view, NFS used to be a joke, as it flooded the
network with keepalives, and although samba used broadcasts, it managed to
be better than NFS.
NFS version 3 is quite another story. It can successfully compete with samba
when it comes to performance issues. There are tests that show that NFSv3 is
generally better than samba.
Samba uses a layer of non routable protocols (Netbios). It doesn't work
between networks, without a NAT helper or some sort of tricks that emulate a
samba proxy.
On the other hand NFS is quite happy with working between networks.
There are other options on this field like coda, AFS, etc...
Hope it helps,
Alex
- Previous message: Michael Bartosh (local Account): "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- In reply to: Ryan Nowakowski: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Next in thread: Frank Burkhardt: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Reply: Frank Burkhardt: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|