20

I have a server at home accesible via local WIFI. I also have several laptops. I share folders in the server using sshfs due to its ease-of-use. But sometimes I notice lots of connections issues with the shared folders.

Is NFS a better solution?

Improve this question
2
  • The answer to your question is really subjective. If NFS meets all your requirements you should switch.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Mar 7, 2013 at 11:12
  • Agree that this is really off-topic. I would consider rephrasing the question so that there can be a definitive answer. Perhaps asking a question around preventing lost connections.
    – Julian Knight
    Commented Mar 7, 2013 at 15:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
15

Update: I posted this answer in 2013 and it seems that SSHFS has become a reliable network file system. As an additional bonus, if you already have SSH installed, it is easy to set up.

My advice today would be:

  1. If you have a heterogeneous Windows/Linux environment, go for CIFS.
  2. If you have a Linux-only environment, give SSHFS a try, and, if it fits your needs, stick to it. Otherwise use NFS.

Check this link shared by Roc W. in the comments for benchmarks: https://blog.ja-ke.tech/2019/08/27/nas-performance-sshfs-nfs-smb.html

I've used SSHFS in a corporate environment in the past and it is, in my experience, unreliable under heavy load and best suited for casual use.

If you need a heavy duty network filesystem go for NFS or CIFS (Samba). You will have to trade encryption for stability, though, unless you use NFSv4, which supports encryption.

So yes, you could use NFSv4 as a replacement which would both provide better performance under heavy load and encryption. This document at ubuntu.com explains how to set it up.

Improve this answer
3
  • 3
    I would like to know if other people share the sentiment that SSHFS is "unreliable under heavy load and best suited for casual use"?
    – MountainX
    Commented Feb 10, 2018 at 1:22
  • 8
    I've used SSHFS on and off for years and have never experienced any reliability issues. Unlike NFS, I can even restart the server without any interruption on the client; with NFS, I've found I have to unmount/remount the client.
    – Rich Remer
    Commented Jun 22, 2018 at 0:03
  • 4
    See a benchmark here: blog.ja-ke.tech/2019/08/27/nas-performance-sshfs-nfs-smb.html
    – Roc W.
    Commented Jan 28, 2021 at 1:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .