SMB vs NFS vs GFS2

>SMB vs NFS vs GFS2

GO!

super mario brothers any day of the fucking year fampaitachi

also

Super Mario Brothers and Need For Speed are good games, but why would you want to compare them? Never heard of GFS2, maybe some old obscure game?

kill yourselves

...

SMB for Windows
NFS for Unix
GFS2 for no fucking idea

You can emulate SMB on Unix easily nowadays. NFS doesn't run well on Unix in comparison, even the older racing games run better on Windows

>he's still going

You know, I'm a storage guy, every time someone mounts CIFS share on a Unix host, and then WANT ME TO TROUBLESHOOT POOR PERFORMANCE, I want to scream.

SMB/CIFS obviously.

now kiss

I use NFS with the soft mount option because zero fucks given.

NFS. Super easy to setup. SFTP has enough security as well

have you actually gotten encrypted nfs to work?

kerberos is fucking insane

>TROUBLESHOOT POOR PERFORMANCE
>CIFS
Is such a thing even possible? I just want my pornos on my tablet without it buffering 24/7.

I use NFS.

My only issue is the complete lack of security (IP based authentication lol), and that it will completely fuck a client up if the server goes down, often making them have to forcibly shut down their computer.

You can use Kerberos with NFS for password-authentication, but goddamn is Kerberos difficult to setup. It's a huge complex beast when all I want is password authentication for NFS...

Never even heard of GFS2 until now.

I just use SMB nowadays, SFTP and the like for anything internet-facing.

sshfs?

This.
Nfs is harder to setup than fucking samba is

NFS is much easier to setup than samba.

NFS + Kerberos is much harder to setup than a normal samba share.

Samba.

Proof?