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@gc-24.de 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.
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?