-1

Is it fine to use smb in a linux only environment for file sharing(no clustering and so on) ? I know that nfs is a bit faster then smb.

But are there any other relevant disadvantages? (Security, functionality,...)

HansMaller
  • 21
  • 1
  • 6
  • 1
    Pay attention to file attributes, i.e. see https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/103415/why-are-files-in-a-smbfs-mounted-share-created-with-executable-bit-set – Davide Cavestro Sep 18 '17 at 09:16
  • I've also found it necessary to be rather careful about filename character sets, if you're using unicode filenames (and I guess we mostly are these days, in Linux). I use SMB with Linux quite a bit, but something about it just makes me uncomfortable -- I can't really put my finger on what that is. – Kevin Boone Sep 18 '17 at 12:22

1 Answers1

0

With the latest SMB version (ver3 and up) this protocol has encryption support. SMB is more secure then nfs because is uses packet signing (optional).

SMB1 has security issue (google "wannacry ransomware") , there are several SMB projects (GPL and non-GPL) that support SMB2 and SMB3.

Eliad Cohen
  • 378
  • 2
  • 10