RE: Samba vs NFS

From: Scott Fagg (scott.fagg_at_arup.com.au)
Date: 02/22/05

  • Next message: Bryce Porter: "RE: Samba vs NFS" 
    Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:48:55 +1000
To: "net shark" <netshark@sexmagnet.com>, <focus-linux@securityfocus.com>

    Samba does work across routers if you use TCP/IP instead of NetBEUI. There are currently 3 routers between my windows desktop and my samba server at the moment, and none of them are doing anything special.
     
    What's the state of NFSv4 ?
     
    regards,
    scott

    ________________________________

    From: net shark [mailto:netshark@sexmagnet.com]
    Sent: Wed 23-Feb-05 3:43 AM
    To: focus-linux@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Samba vs NFS

    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

  • Next message: Bryce Porter: "RE: Samba vs NFS"