Hello,
do ssh alone can serve as a replacement for NFS file sharing linux?
What is the point of adding nfs over ssh ssh given that I only do exactly the same and even more than before nfs alone?
Member
Hello,
do ssh alone can serve as a replacement for NFS file sharing linux?
What is the point of adding nfs over ssh ssh given that I only do exactly the same and even more than before nfs alone?
Member
one could say that nfs shares can be mounted in the tree as a local directory, which requires for ssh sshfs to go through, or use the fish protocol KDE or gnome equivalent. But by and large I believe NFS does nothing really more interesting than ssh. But the reverse is true.
Member
NFS and SSH do not have the same utility. The goal of NFS is to share files over the network .. It is not the purpose of SSH.
I would say "What is the point of using SSH? NFS enough." You can mount from the NFS 4, using encryption and NFS performance level is higher than SSH. What are your needs?What is the point of adding nfs over ssh ssh given that I only do exactly the same and even more than before nfs alone?
Member
SHFS, NFS, SMB, ... have the same functionality for the operation as a file sharing (or almost). SSHFS asks only to configure the client (installed sshfs and added a line in fstab), the server is usually installed by default. NFS, SMB, ... Configuration requires a separate and perhaps even a server for authentication. To not take the lead between two machines, SSHFS I think the easiest solution:
Member
Thank you for your responses. I noticed that the remote folder is not automatically installed on the desktop. I'll see if it is feasible.
Member
See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFS
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
What we think, we become (Please don't think you are a superhero and don't try to fly)
"SUCCESS IS NOT A DESTINATION , IT'S A JOURNEY"
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks