> I would like to mount a remote partition using sshfs.
I use sshfs myself but only for quick connections - for something
permanent like this, I would recommend using NFS or SAMBA instead. sshfs
(and most FUSE filesystems for that matter) are convenient for ad-hoc
needs, but they’re not designed for this type of “permanent” use.
If it’s a linux machine where the storage/Data folder is, I’d use NFS on that machine to export the folder, NFS client on the other one to mount it. Both can be done from Yast,
On 2013-01-10 21:26, Knurpht wrote:
>
> If it’s a linux machine where the storage/Data folder is, I’d use NFS on
> that machine to export the folder, NFS client on the other one to mount
> it. Both can be done from Yast,
However, NFS does not encrypt connections, sshfs does. The later can
probably be used over internet.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:03:30 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2013-01-10 21:26, Knurpht wrote:
>>
>> If it’s a linux machine where the storage/Data folder is, I’d use NFS
>> on that machine to export the folder, NFS client on the other one to
>> mount it. Both can be done from Yast,
>
> However, NFS does not encrypt connections, sshfs does. The later can
> probably be used over internet.
I’d use a VPN for securing the connection over the 'net myself.
FUSE-based filesystems lack a fair amount of important features used in
true multi-user networked file systems, as you know. While the mount
point in question is RO, it’d be better to implement a proper networked
file system rather than use something that’s not intended for heavy use.
On 2013-01-11 00:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:03:30 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> However, NFS does not encrypt connections, sshfs does. The later can
>> probably be used over internet.
>
> I’d use a VPN for securing the connection over the 'net myself.
Yes, that’s the most powerful method. But ssh is far easier to setup.
> FUSE-based filesystems lack a fair amount of important features used in
> true multi-user networked file systems, as you know. While the mount
> point in question is RO, it’d be better to implement a proper networked
> file system rather than use something that’s not intended for heavy use.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:19:00 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2013-01-11 00:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:03:30 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>>> However, NFS does not encrypt connections, sshfs does. The later can
>>> probably be used over internet.
>>
>> I’d use a VPN for securing the connection over the 'net myself.
>
> Yes, that’s the most powerful method. But ssh is far easier to setup.
Perhaps, but there’s “getting the job done as a hack” and “getting the
job done right”.
>> FUSE-based filesystems lack a fair amount of important features used in
>> true multi-user networked file systems, as you know. While the mount
>> point in question is RO, it’d be better to implement a proper networked
>> file system rather than use something that’s not intended for heavy
>> use.
>
> The NTFS is also fuse based… I don’t know.
FUSE itself isn’t the limiting factor, it’s the implementation. sshfs
doesn’t implement things like file locking/file sharing, concurrent use,
etc. It’s a quick-and-dirty filesystem. It has its uses (like I said, I
use it myself when I need a quick ad-hoc connection to browse and copy
files), but as a permanent remote filesystem, it’s not an ideal choice.
Which is why I’m suggesting to the OP that he implement a solution that’s
better for a long-term solution, rather than implementing a hack as a
permanent solution.