Hi everyone !

Right now I can’t decide wich one is the most versatile and fit my personal needs, so I’m looking into your personal experience with each one of them, if you mind sharing your experience.

It’s mostly for secure shared volumes containing ebooks and media storage/files on my home network. Adding some security into the mix even tough I actually don’t need it (mostly for learning process).

More precisely how difficult is the NFS configuration with kerberos? Is it actually useful? Never used kerberos and have no idea how it works, so it’s a very much new tech on my side.

I would really apreciate some indepth personal experience and why you would considere one over another !

Thank you !

  • lemmyreader@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    • NFS : historically insecure by default. Don’t know about Kerberos making it secure but Kerberos does not look easy to configure.

    • sshfs : probably most easy to setup. Can be confusing with ownership and permissions sometimes.

    • Samba : solid but has a learning curve, even for a simple setup. For example, for a standalone Samba server omitting the Active Directory part, you need to know that in order to create a Samba user you must first have created a local user with the same username.

    https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server

    • N0x0n@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      Thanks for the link :) I have already setup a samba share (actually I have setup all 3 on my server xD). But Didn’t knew they have a whole tutorial on it :) Thanks for the resource, I think I will stay with samba :) Looks the most versatil and has also “easier” security function setup. I mean I don’t think I need Kerberos in my homelab setup and SSHFS… Yeah people tend to argue it’s a pain in the ass with Windows !

      • lemmyreader@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Thanks for the link :) I have already setup a samba share (actually I have setup all 3 on my server xD).

        Nice :) With Samba you can also create guest entries without passwords for visitors while having your private files behind your own login. Here an example of guest access : https://std.rocks/gnulinux_samba_no_password.html

        And apart from that Samba should be fine for access from MacOS and Windows clients unlike with the ancient NFS, which I expect to be more troublesome to connect especially on Windows, though that is a wild guess.

    • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      sshfs : probably most easy to setup. Can be confusing with ownership and permissions sometimes.

      And the worst option if you have Windows clients.

      • rzr@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        I am wondering if someone can recommend any libre sshfs client for windows7+ preferably that could be installed as a portable app ?

        • TCB13@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          SSHFS is a client not a server. If you want to access SFTP / SSH “shares” from Windows WinSCP and Cyberduck are good options.

  • flei@feddit.de
    0·
    3 months ago

    In my personal experience and for my personal needs smb has worked best for me even though it feels kinda “bad” because of the windows background. However that also makes it useful, too, as it is compatible with most os’es…

    Security setup is easy. Performance good (in my experience better than sshfs but i am sure sshfs transfers are more secure than smb).

    • N0x0n@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t samba a fork and open source package from Windows’s samba/cif ? I think I read something like that on the web, but not sure about that information. So it hasn’t anything to do with windows. I may be wrong on that tough !

  • Psiczar@aussie.zone
    0·
    3 months ago

    Moved to Truenas Scale and decided to setup NFS shares for my Linux server. Spent a lot of time troubleshooting the fstab config and file/share permissions. Switched to CIFS/SAMBA and had it working in about 15 minutes.

    • N0x0n@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      Good to know samba works well with truenas. Seeing all the comments, the tendency seems to go in samba’s direction !

  • tanakian@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    3 months ago

    i use nfs. always. every minute my computer is online it has a mounted directory from my server.

    via nfs and wireguard.

    i tried lots of things but nfs which listens on wireguard ip is the best i ever achieved.

  • mholiv@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    SSHFS will be incredibly slow. I would avoid it personally.

    NFS will be performant and is easy to set up. This being said by default NFS is without any security.

    The problem is that Kerberos is a huge pain to set up. I would avoid this unless you really need Kerberos.

    If you want security NFS + WireGuard will serve you well.

    Also I would consider Samba/CIFS if it is for local convenient fine access. It’s not super secure but for me it’s a good trade off.

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Is it even possible to use any kind of authentication with NFS other than Kerberos?

      • mholiv@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        As a workaround yes. Just do your NFS exports over WireGuard. WireGuard acts as the authentication and encryption.

  • ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’ve got both Samba and NFS set up. I’d say Samba is the most versatile, just because more devices are bound to be compatible with it out of the box. I have an app on my phone I can use to connect to it, for example. And it obviously works with Windows machines. NFS is very simple to set up and nice and speedy. But I only use it for a couple permanent shares for specific things between Linux machines. You could always use a mix. I have a directory that’s shared with both.

    I’ve never configured Kerberos I think, might’ve tried once in the past. From what I understand it’s a pain to set up and really more useful for enterprise environments. But could be fun to configure if you’re into tinkering with that sort of thing.

  • tburkhol@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    If you’re going to have any non-linux clients, samba will be an order of magnitude easier. MacOS handles nfs pretty well, but Windows just wants SMB

    • wvstolzing@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      macOS switched from AFS to samba for file sharing & time machine backups a while ago; it’s been a while since I had first-hand experience setting up a Mac, but based on that fact I’m pretty sure samba is more straightforward to use. … it annoyingly mangles unix file ownership, & permissions though, as mentioned above in https://lemmy.ml/comment/10204431

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      You don’t have to choose just one though. It’s perfectly ok to share a directory via Samba for Windows clients and share the same directory again with NFS for Linux clients.

  • Spectranox@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I ran SSHFS for a while maybe half a year ago? I quite liked it cause we obviously already use SSH so setup was quick and easy, performance was good too. Then I learnt it’s no longer maintained so switched to NFS.

    NFS is good, if you aren’t accessing from Windows I would go for that. Setup is pretty simple too, just change /etc/exports and a few permissions or ownerships.

    Can’t comment on Kerberos, but considering NFS popularity I can’t imagine it being difficult.

      • giloronfoo@beehaw.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        I think that’s what the kerberos is there to solve. I’ve heard that it isn’t that bad to set up. I haven’t tried and just stuck with SMB.

      • Spectranox@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        In my experience, just making sure the directory you’re sharing is owned by nobody:nogroup is enough.

        sudo chown -R nobody:nogroup /path/to/nfs

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Ohh, no - you don’t want to do that. Why would you do that?

          NFS without kerberos uses the UIDs of the remote users to determine access to files on the server. It’s very insecure since the client systems can use whatever UIDs they want. It’s why NFS has a “squash root” option which blocks any remote system from using UID 0. Kerberos allows users to authenticate so that the server knows who they are on the local system rather than trusting the remote system.

          Changing ownership to “nobody” doesn’t give anyone access - it just sets the owner to the “nobody” user. You would need to “chmod” to give read/write permissions.

          • Spectranox@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            I’m not an expert with this stuff, I just do whatever works. This works, so I do it and when people ask me or just in general how to do it this is what I tell them. Most of the guides I’ve come across, including one from DigitalOcean, recommends doing this.

  • DaGeek247@fedia.io
    0·
    3 months ago

    You’ll probbly want samba then. Much easier to set up, including account security.

    I personally switched from samba to nfs for my linux iso collection because the overhead was causing lag on my tv box. Books won’t have this issue.

  • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 months ago

    Follow-up question:

    Is anybody really using NFS?

    I have found SMB to be sufficient. The network folder in the file browser is really nice. I don’t think NFS has that.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      NFS is fantastic from a practical standpoint. You can literally specify it in your fstab to mount the network share at boot.

      The best part is, there is no latency in waiting for it to mount. It only tries to fetch data once you request a resource from that mount path. Translation: If your network device is asleep, NFS will wake it up for you and fetch the resource on demand.

      I love NFS

      • LaggyKar@programming.dev
        0·
        3 months ago

        Have they done anything about the lack of security? Last I checked, anyone could mount an NFS share and access it as whatever user they wanted, without authentication.

      • mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.ukEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        You can literally specify it in your fstab to mount the network share at boot.

        Uh, the same is possible with any other file system, too.

        //nas/share    /mnt/whatever    smb3    defaults,auto,username=bob,password=xxx    0   0
          • mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.ukEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            I’ve never noticed any issues or long delays. My Raspberrys come up either way. Might take a bit longer if the NAS isn’t accessible - but they still come up. Only without the mounted shares, of course.

            As an alternative, you could do the same using systemd.

      • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        I’m so used to SMB and SSH, especially with the file manager integration. I was wondering if we have something similar with nfs.

      • mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.ukEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        NFS is fantastic from a practical standpoint.

        Only if you don’t care about the NAS’es file permission management and have the same uid on all your systems mounting the same shares via NFS. Not sure if it’s different with other NAS implementations, but on my Synology DS415+ all files put on there via NFS get the UID from the source system. Which isn’t the UID of my user on the Synology.

        E.g. on my Raspberrys, my user usually is uid 1000 / gid 1000. But on my Synology, my user is uid 1026 / gid 100. So the integrated management tools (e.g. File Station) show mangled permissions as the user with uid 1000 is not known.

        And the only real solution to this is to use a Kerberos server - which I think is a bit overkill in a 1 user environment. idmap doesn’t really work on my NAS.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    0·
    3 months ago

    Honestly I just use SMB with Samba now it’s very fast and secure with the v3 protocol, It gets more complicated if you need AD/LDAP auth but most people don’t especially on a home network.

    NFS is too much of a pain in the ass. I would not use sshfs unless you need to connect over the Internet and a VPN isn’t an option for that.

    Other options like SFTP, DAV, emulating S3 aren’t really aiming to fill the same use cases SMB does.

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    3 months ago

    NFS v4 with krb is probably the best option of these if Linux/macOS is all you need to support because everything just works transparently with one system-wide mount. I had it set up for a couple years until recently (had to basically completely give up on my network setup including the box the KDC was running on for unrelated reasons recently and have still yet to set it up completely again).

    Kerberos is pretty straightforward to set up if you know how it works, I think the main problem is lack of documentation and pretty awful NFS error messages (you pretty much have to enable nfsd/rpc debug kernel options if you want to even begin figuring out what’s going wrong when your mount doesn’t work). The first time I set it up it took me a whole day to get it to actually work, and in the end a reboot of the NFS server solved the problem I had.

    Look at the Arch wiki article for Kerberos, I think that’s what I used mostly. Feel free to ask if you need help setting it up.

    (Unfortunately IMO all of these suck in different ways though: sshfs dies if your SSH connection gets interrupted, NFS v4 (v3 is unusable imo because it doesn’t have idmap so you have to make sure your user IDs match on every machine) isn’t supported by Windows and mobile devices, Samba doesn’t map well to Unix permissions and I can’t tell what its “unix extensions” are actually supposed to do if it isn’t permissions. Integrating Samba with NFS, if you want to use both, also is pretty hard because while Samba theoretically uses Kerberos, it doesn’t work with a normal KDC but needs Samba AD because Microsoft (I haven’t taken a look at Samba AD yet). And forget integrating Samba with anything that isn’t Kerberos-based entirely because NTLM is the only other auth mechanism and it’s pretty much incompatible with anything because the client only sends the password hashed with a unique mechanism. So you’re going to have a pretty bad time if you want to use a single auth mechanism for everything if SMB is involved, and that’s pretty much your only option if you want to access stuff on a mobile device.)

    • N0x0n@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      Thank you for your friendly and detailed response !!!

      Look at the Arch wiki article for Kerberos, I think that’s what I used mostly. Feel free to ask if you need help setting it up.

      It’s always Arch wiki :D. Thank you, but I will probably stay with samba at the moment which will probably fullfil my current needs and seems more complex than I thought ! Also, it’s in a multi-OS environnement (Windows, MacOS, Linux) and NFS seems to not work very well with Windows :/ If I could I would switch my whole family to Linux, but old habits die hard…

      Anyway, will keep Kerberos under my radar ! I really want to learn more about it seems very interesting, especially the cybersecurity aspect !

      If you don’t mind… Can you tell very briefly what kerberos actually solves in a coporate environnement ? Please, give me a sneek peak of the subject that awaits me :) !!

  • flashgnash@lemm.ee
    0·
    3 months ago

    Sshfs afaik is used for a different purpose than the others

    I usually use it when I’m working on a remote machine for a long duration and want to use my local tools (so I don’t have to install them on the server, and because using neovim over SSH on a crappy connection sucks)