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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
