this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
32 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40183 readers
597 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am running a NAS that needs to connect to a server (the NAS isn't powerful enough). I also need to connect my NAS to a Windows, Mac, and Linux device (Linux being the most important, then Mac, then Windows). Out of SMB, FTP, and NFS, which one would be the best, quickest, and most secure for my situation? My NAS supports multiple sharing protocols, but I don't want to deal with mixed up permissions and conflicts later on.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

SMB for the windows clients, possibly NFS as well for the others. *nix will talk with SMB fine, but NFS may be faster. Windows' NFS support is shit though.

Running both daemons won't really add much overhead

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

SMB works fine on everything. Whatever NAS they are running will be using the same Samba implementation anyway.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've found SMB to more frequently have connection issues with my Linux clients, and often be slower. It'll work, but if you're mainly supporting Linux clients, might as well set up NFS if you like toying with things anyways

[–] monomon@programming.dev 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Same here, SMB was significantly slower in our organization than NFS.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because SMB is slower than NFS. OP isn't concerned about that, but rather ease of use, and persisting perms and ownership.

[–] monomon@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago

Fair enough, i thought it should be noted. The difference was significant at times.