14
4
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?
Zhen
Posted 2013-03-07T10:57:33.247
Reputation: 713
11
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.
jaume
Posted 2013-03-07T10:57:33.247
Reputation: 4 947
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 – 2018-02-10T01:22:16.933
2I'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 – 2018-06-22T00:03:13.927
The answer to your question is really subjective. If NFS meets all your requirements you should switch. – Ramhound – 2013-03-07T11:12:05.433
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 – 2013-03-07T15:20:13.863