On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:22:48 PM CEST Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 05:36:03PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> > On May 18, 2020, at 5:13 AM, hw <hw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Is there a better alternative for mounting remote file systems
> > > over unreliable
> > > connections?
> >
> > I don’t have a good answer for you, because if you’d asked me
> > without all this backstory whether NFS or SSHFS is more tolerant of
> > bad connections, I’d have told you SSHFS.
>
> On the other hand, NFS is a fully-featured filesystem that supports
> fancy features like locking and a full ACL system. SSHFS is a FUSE
> filesystem that will break a lot of software if you try to use it for
> anything more complex than 'ls' and 'cp'.
Ok, I won't use it anymore then.
> For what it's worth, Samba with SMBv3 and the POSIX extension[1] is a
> lot more tolerant of bad connections, and presents itself as a real
> filesystem under linux.
>
> 1. https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/SMB3-Linux
I could use it as well. How does it deal with interrupted connections? I
don't want to loose data or otherwise break things when the connection is
interrupted. I know that NFS is supposed to resume when the connection is
back, but what does samba/cifs do?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
