What linux lacks most - a decent remote fs

[Chris G]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:44:58PM +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
>>> can't believe how widely used NFS is, because it is the source of
>>> endless problems for me. I've never seen it work with any kind of
>>> reliability at all. One thing I'll say for samba is that the data
>>> actually seems to show up correctly on the other side :-). 
>>
>> I've had the opposite.  Samba stalling and transferring at a rate slower
>> than I can retype a file.  Samba never managing to connect to the other
>> side.  The hassles of manually setting up each user.  The hassles of
>> file permissions and ownership getting screwed up in transit.  Compared
>> to NFS working without pain.
>>
>> Though, I have to say that my painless NFS server is on a FC4 machine,
>> and that works fine.  I've found I've had to manually mess with
>> firewalling to get it to work through anything higher than FC4.
>>
> I'm surprised you don't need to with FC4. It's actually fairly simple.
> [root at mail.js.id.au sysconfig]# cat nfs
> LOCKD_TCPPORT=32768
> LOCKD_UDPPORT=32788
> RQUOTAD_PORT=621
> MOUNTD_PORT=640
>
Surely a far easier approach to the firewall issues is to remove the
firewall completely to the interface between your LAN and the outside
world.  I just turn the firewall off on all the systems on my LAN and
the router firewall is set up to give me the security I want.  It
simplifies maintenance too because there is only one firewall to set
up and systems behind the firewall can be as lax as they like and be
re-installed frequently without problems.

-- 
Chris Green