[Cialug] Best Local SAN performance

[Jared Brees]

I have far fewer issues connecting to SMB shares than NFS shares from my Linux boxes. It's on my to-do list to convert my NFS share to an SMB share. SMB is far from "only" being useful with Windows clients. One of the things SMB does better (in my opinion) than NFS is access control. https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/b5ba8t/nfs_vs_samba_whats_the_trend_nowadays/ - you've got more options with SMB.

You can always use everything mentioned.... make the backplane iSCSI, have the server serve up AFP + SMB + NFS, throw in WebDAV, FTP if you wanna get crazy.

If you don't care about multi-user or multi-machine (simultaneous) access, and all of your potential clients are Linux... sure, NFS is probably best. But the performance gap really isn't much in most cases: https://blog.ja-ke.tech/2019/08/27/nas-performance-sshfs-nfs-smb.html

Also, you mentioned this is for your dev machines... wouldn't a Git server be better suited to that?

________________________________
From: Cialug <cialug-bounces at cialug.org> on behalf of L. V. Lammert <lvl at omnitec.net>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 12:48
To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group <cialug at cialug.org>
Subject: Re: [Cialug] Best Local SAN performance

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Scott Yates wrote:

> The only caution i would give with regards to SMB would be
> filepermissions.  NFS is probably the safest bet if your clients are
> linux.
>
Agreed, .. SMB is only useful with Windoze clients.

        Lee
_______________________________________________
Cialug mailing list
Cialug at cialug.org
https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug