<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>From my own experience, no real depth of knowledge here... I use
NFS for my home shares. Painless with automount and nfsv4. I can't
speak to widespread use in enterprise, but as a "casual" nfs user,
it gets the job done nicely. I share a folder called ark from one
of my servers and mount it on all of my machines. The ark lives on
a mirrored zpool that is frequently snapshotted to another
mirrored zpool on another server (I'm less of a zfs casual user,
but that's an aside). I haven't lost a bit this way in the couple
of years since I stood up the nfs share and I offloaded about 1TB
of stuff I like to have on hand to the server. I tried Samba, ick,
seems like windowism to me and I tried some NAS stuff, but nfs was
fastest and simplest. I haven't really found anything better that
works as painlessly as nfs, though I do look into alternatives
every so often.</p>
<p>What else to try?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Will<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/13/25 11:43 AM, Tom Lyon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANxB0bTVx-bVo7syZLwgfPz8Kh2PM8pHoLdiAYLN9cFqW16SYQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">BTW, my own opinions abut NFS can be seen in my
"NFS Must Die!" talk here: <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF_djcccKc&ab_channel=TomLyon"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF_djcccKc&ab_channel=TomLyon</a>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not that NFS *was* bad - but it *is* bad (for non-casual
use).</div>
<div>Like the C language, it was great for its time. Not so
much anymore.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at
9:24 AM Peter Weinberger (温博格) via TUHS <<a
href="mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">tuhs@tuhs.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">It was a research
proof-of-princple. (i.e.. partly principled and<br>
partly really hacky. My list of its issues was pretty long.)<br>
<br>
(If A mounted B's file system somewhere, and B mounted A's,
then the<br>
directory tree was infinite. That's mathematics, not a bug.)<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <<a
href="mailto:lm@mcvoy.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">lm@mcvoy.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:18:34AM -0400, Dan Cross
wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:00???AM Douglas McIlroy<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > > I was always sorry that Peter Weinberger's RFS
never made it outside<br>
> > > Bell Labs. It allowed networking between
separately administered<br>
> > > systems by mapping UIDs.<br>
> ><br>
> > I believe it did? If I recall correctly, it was
available with System<br>
> > V, though perhaps I am misremembering.<br>
><br>
> Sunos had it, my office mate ported it. I was
unimpressed, it worked well<br>
> between the same archs but was riddled with byte order
problems and<br>
> ioctl calls that were not portable.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>