New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Someone should have mentioned this before. Samba is not meant to be used over the internet and it will not work very well.
@gsrdgrdghd what do you suggest?
Theres also webdav
How does webdav work with Net Drive? Does it 'segment' files for faster xfer? Is there much overhead / stuff to do on the host node?
not sure, never used Net Drive myself...
but on their website it says that it will work with webdav (which if I recall correct) is better suited for Internet transfers. Atleast better then SMB.
Try sshfs . . simple solution that "just works".
http://code.google.com/p/win-sshfs/
+1 Works nicely here.
How does SSHFS work with very large files that may take a few hours to sync over? Just curious, since I view it as a bit of "trickery" to the system but I've been thinking of using it to transfer a few...hundred GB.
I haven't used it to transfer massive files, but I see no reason why there would be any problem.
sshfs is not "trickery" in any sense of the word.
Well, I say it that way because it mounts it in a way that much of the system would view as local while transferring over a NIC instead of a purely local to local interface. Thus sort of a "trick" in my mind.
@jarland
That's different from Samba how?
sshfs is implemented through FUSE.
@microlinux barking up the wrong tree...samba is based on CIFS...designed from the ground up as a Internet Fileserver protocol. Sshfs takes ssh as transport then throws in a fuse filesystem abstraction. It's cool buts it's hackery cool
sshfs is not much different than ftpfs, the same idea, only the transfer protocols are different and, of course, security and all that follows.
@craigb
I understand they are different internally, sshfs really still isn't "hackery". It has predictable behaviors implemented with standard technologies. I'm pretty sure if I looked at the source code for Samba I'd see pieces that have been used in other contexts.
Understand that sshfs and Samba were not written to solve the same problem, but in this context either would work.
Well I copied several 20-30GB archives over it last night, none of my theoretical concerns seemed to present an issue.
I assume samba was created to solve the problem with allowing Linux to be used in a LAN environment? While sshfs is designed for remote locations?
@Microlinux
Samba was created as a reverse engineering of the Microsofts Server Message Block protocol (SMB) therefore the samba name.
It was about joining domains, sharing files in a windows environment.
sshfs is a completely different animal.
I think Windows has native DAV support, so webdav would work too.
Give nfs a go, it's what I would've used.