Note: I have to use fixed IP address because I use iptables as firewall (no firewall and aditional rules in data center)
On my machine I mount that share using autofs:
NewMachine xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:/export/dev_user
and that works (sort of). Problem is that all folders on share are read only.
Because almost exact (difference below) same configuration works as it should on another server I’m interested how to fix this.
On another server I have same setup except UID on my machine and on server are same (1000) while on new server dev_user is 2nd user on that machine and have UID 1001 so my assumption is that is the problem.
Yes, it is. NFS client send numerical UID of local user to NFS server and NFS server checks file access permissions based on this UID. User names are irrelevant here. So either you have to ensure that your user has the same numerical UID on each system or you need to use other authentication scheme like Kerberos.
The idea of the original designers of NFS (SUN Microsystems IIRC) was that systems using NFS would be closely related to each other. Related in things like being of the same company, being administrated by one group of system administrators creating a common policy, etc. Thus when human beings would be configured in such a group of systems by giving them UIDs (and user names, etc. same for GIDs), that would be the same over all these systems. Only so the restrictions of a Unix system implied by the ownership/permission-bits schema will work to satisfaction. To make this easier, they even added another feature: NIS (in those time known as Yellow Pages).
But you do not really need NIS when you have only a handful of systems. You only need some discipline and configure them the same in all the systems concerned.
And I hope you now are aware of the fact that the export is not mounted read-only (as your jumped to conclusion in your thread title was indicating). That is btw easy to check with
I won’t join you.
Using an interface designed in the first place to let Windows computers benifit from stable (based on Unix) file servers and in the second place to offer Unix/Linux workplaces giving access to company file servers based on MS software, IMHO it is a bit strange to use SAMBA as a Linux to Linux interface.
Second is that the whole security concept of ownership and permissions based on UID/GID throughout the (local) cluster of systems, which NFS supports, is dropped. Maybe some are not interested and are glad to trade “easier management” against “more security”, but for others this is contrary.
And of course, that management is not at all that difficult. It only is frustrating when you “just used” NFS without understanding it first. And then having to adapt later because you painted yourself into a corner.
Everybody to his/her own choice. It is Linux after all.
And even if you really don’t like Samba because it’s Microsoft what are the advantages of NFS vs SSHFS? Lower CPU utilization?
NFS in my opinion is simply a very old protocol that worked for what it was designed to do years ago but now I don’t really see a use case for it in a modern network environment.
Well NFS just works the problem is that MS stole it then changed it to be incompatible. Strange how they always do that. You need samba if you have Windows in the mix only if all is Linux NFS is the better choice
