sshfs vs nfs

[syampillai]

I found sshfs to be extremely convenient to set up and use (almost no setup when ssh is already running).
What are the disadvantages when compared to nfs?
In terms of speed, performance, reliability ...

[Chrysantine]

Compression overhead, poorer low latency toleration and if connection cuts every now and then sshfs get cranky.

[Akoellh]

Typical tradeoff when using a secure (sshfs) via an unsecure (nfs) protocol.

If only used in a LAN without _any_ possibility to access the shares from the "outside world", nfs will perform better, however nfs is no real option if the shares should be available from outside the LAN.

(Same story for smb, of course, never make shares accessible to the WAN.)

[Chrysantine]

Actually the NFS 'insecurity' is a bit of a misconception, v4 has full encryption support so if properly configured is quite secure even over 'unsecure' networks.

[hendersj]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 07:26:01 +0000, Chrysantine wrote:

> Compression overhead,

As well as the encryption overhead.

I tend to use sshfs for short connections (for example to rsync data from
a server I don't have access to set up NFS exports on) or over the public
internet (mostly for the same reason - no access to set up NFS exports or
server config), NFS for persistent connections that are used constantly.

Jim

[cjcox]

On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 04:36 +0000, syampillai wrote:
> I found sshfs to be extremely convenient to set up and use (almost no
> setup when ssh is already running).
> What are the disadvantages when compared to nfs?
> In terms of speed, performance, reliability ...

Peformance penalty will be huge.

Just fyi.

Does sshfs support locking? How is client side caching done (hint, it
isn't, only directory contents)? Sshfs is just a neato tool. It's not
a network file system. It's not going to be all that reliable either.

NFS is EASY to setup. Sshfs is arguably insecure in many/most setups.

[hendersj]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:27:45 +0000, cjcox wrote:

> Sshfs is arguably insecure in many/most setups.

How so?

sshfs only exposes the remote filesystem (in the default configuration)
to the user who invoked it (that's a FUSE feature, I believe), so what
about it is insecure?

Jim

[cjcox]

On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 18:08 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:27:45 +0000, cjcox wrote:
>
> > Sshfs is arguably insecure in many/most setups.
>
> How so?
>
> sshfs only exposes the remote filesystem (in the default configuration)
> to the user who invoked it (that's a FUSE feature, I believe), so what
> about it is insecure?

Obviously then you're NOT getting an NFS resplacement then are you?
I'm talking about turning on the insecure options to allow it to behave
more generically like a network file system rather than a "one user"
client access.

[hendersj]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 19:08:53 +0000, cjcox wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 18:08 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:27:45 +0000, cjcox wrote:
>>
>> > Sshfs is arguably insecure in many/most setups.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> sshfs only exposes the remote filesystem (in the default configuration)
>> to the user who invoked it (that's a FUSE feature, I believe), so what
>> about it is insecure?
>
> Obviously then you're NOT getting an NFS resplacement then are you?

No, but as I said, I'm not using it that way anyways.

> I'm
> talking about turning on the insecure options to allow it to behave more
> generically like a network file system rather than a "one user" client
> access.

I don't think "most people" use it that way. I think it's more likely
"most people" use it as intended.

Like most tools, if you use it the way it's designed to be used, you
won't have a problem with it. :-)

Jim

[cjcox]

On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 19:31 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
....
> I don't think "most people" use it that way. I think it's more likely
> "most people" use it as intended.
>
> Like most tools, if you use it the way it's designed to be used, you
> won't have a problem with it. :-)

My point is THAT is NOT an NFS replacement. It's more like somebody
running WinSCP under Windows (it's better, yes... understood). But
it's wrong to compare this to NFS... NFS is different, and this
isn't a replacement. But for somebody that doesn't need NFS but
just wants a friendlier access via ssh, yes... I suppose it is fine.