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 at 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. > > 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?