Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2532 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse] smbfs vs. cifs mounts to samba shares {solved}
- From: "John Andersen" <jsamyth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 12:23:19 -0700
- Message-id: <60fb01490805061223m5146ab81t4cf631d824a1f3ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM, James D. Parra <Jamesp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once you have samba, perhaps because there are windows machines in the mix,
there is seldom any reason for nfs. I haven't installed nfs since suse 7.3 or
something.
SMBmount/CIFSmount work every bit as fast, and since I always
needed them anyway, why bother coordinating all the UID/GIDs for what
was basically a very insecure system anyway...
I would never mix the two.
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, the usernames and group IDs are identical across workstations &
servers. This makes nfs mounts easier to manage. Even with IDs matching up,
cifs mounts would get errors. The noacl & noperm options fixed the problem.
Once you have samba, perhaps because there are windows machines in the mix,
there is seldom any reason for nfs. I haven't installed nfs since suse 7.3 or
something.
SMBmount/CIFSmount work every bit as fast, and since I always
needed them anyway, why bother coordinating all the UID/GIDs for what
was basically a very insecure system anyway...
I would never mix the two.
--
----------JSA---------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |