# SMB alternatives?



## mefizto (May 18, 2015)

Greetings all,

as documented elsewhere https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/smb-authentication-error.51585/, I have a problem with mounting NAS over SMB.  As this is critical for me to access the NAS, I have been considering alternatives, which appear to be:

1.  NFS instead of SMB,
2.  SFTP, and
3.  SSHFS.

Can anyone who has _practical _experience comment on advantages/disadvantages of the alternatives, _e.g._, how good is the NFS client on Windows 7, difficulty of set-up, _etc_., and/or provide any additional alternatives?

Kindest regards,

M


----------



## SirDice (May 19, 2015)

NFS on Windows is pretty crap to be honest. I'd stick to Unix(-like) systems for NFS. The easiest to set up and run is actually Samba, if you need to exchange data with Windows machines. I'll even use it for OS-X.


----------



## gkontos (May 19, 2015)

I will second that. Also, sshfs has many problems, at least last time I tried it. SFTP works well but it is not for sharing.


----------



## Oko (May 19, 2015)

mefizto said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> as documented elsewhere https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/smb-authentication-error.51585/, I have a problem with mounting NAS over SMB.  As this is critical for me to access the NAS, I have been considering alternatives, which appear to be:
> 
> ...


I think you should resolve your SMB problems. Having said that my experience with NFS on Windows is limited due to the fact that we typically deploy professional edition. NFS is no go on Professional edition. I would imagine that Enterprise or Ultimate (which is the most expensive and the most feature complete edition) have good support for NFS.

We use in the lab SFTP Net Drive which is SSHFS client and it is rock stable


https://www.eldos.com/sftp-net-drive/

I accidental stumbled on it while looking how to avoid using OpenVPN on one of my Windows client machines and turning on SMB just for that person on my file server. I would swear that Microsoft is hindering search for that client as no matter which search engine you use it is unlikely you will find the client. All other SSHFS client for Windows are crap in my experience.

SFTP is your last resort. Works as expected.


----------



## mefizto (May 19, 2015)

Gentlemen,

thank you very much for the replies.  I do need a support for a Windows machine.  I would like to resolve the SMB issue, but I do not have any other ideas.  I have deleted and re-created my password, tried the suggestion by Sebulon on the other thread, but to no avail.

From a higher level perspective, it is rather amusing that two UNIX-like machines cannot use the protocol, while it has been working flawlessly for mount on a Windows machine.

Kindest regards,

M


----------



## gkontos (May 19, 2015)

I am not sure about the other *nix machines but I have no issues with SMB as long as I install samba from ports, usually net/samba36. I have never used the 4.X though.


----------



## SirDice (May 19, 2015)

gkontos said:


> I am not sure about the other *nix machines but I have no issues with SMB as long as I install samba from ports, usually net/samba36. I have never used the 4.X though.


Yes, me too. For a single (SOHO) server, stick to the 3.x branch. Samba 4.x is really only interesting if you want or need to run it inside a Windows Active Directory Domain or be a domain controller itself.  I think I've been running the same configuration for Samba on my home server for a few years now. Never had an issue and I'm using several Windows 7 machines and a Windows 8 laptop. I'm also using it to stream movies and such to my HTPC. 

I had tried the Windows 7 NFS client once but it was a royal pain in the, err, posterior to set up. And it performed like crap, compared to serving the same content through SMB. As far as I know Windows 7 Professional can be used as an NFS client, I can't remember it being limited to Enterprise or higher. The Home edition certainly doesn't have it.


----------



## mefizto (May 19, 2015)

Hi gkontos, SirDice,

it is my understanding that the mount_smbfs is part of the base system.  Why do I need to install the entire SMB suite?

Kindest regards,

M


----------



## gkontos (May 19, 2015)

mefizto said:


> it is my understanding that the mount_smbfs is part of the base system.  Why do I need to install the entire SMB suite?


I was under the impression that you wanted to share files over SMB.


----------



## mefizto (May 19, 2015)

HI gkontos,

I do, I have a UNIX server used as NAS.  I want to mount it on different machines, which allows me to share the NAS files.

Kindest regards,

M


----------



## Oko (May 19, 2015)

mefizto said:


> From a higher level perspective, it is rather amusing that two UNIX-like machines cannot use the protocol, while it has been working flawlessly for mount on a Windows machine.



Please somebody correct me if I am hallucinating but it looks to me that he wants to use SMB not only from Windows clients but also from two UNIX clients. Personally I have never ever consider sharing files among UNIX machines using SMB.
For the record I have experience with NFS, AFS (as in Andrew File System), and SSHFS. All three rock stable. For the record I have never configured my own AFS cell.


----------



## mefizto (May 20, 2015)

Hi Oko,

no you are not hallucinating, "he" really wants to do that.  He also fails to see any reason for setting up an additional file sharing protocol, _e.g._, NFS with associated problems - locking, complexity, _etc._, considering that SMB should work.

Now, saying that, he is not very experienced, so any advice would be appreciated.

Kindest regards,

M (He)


----------



## talw (Nov 19, 2015)

Mefizto,

Samba is an SMB open source solution for Linux/Unix. Did you consider a commercial SMB with professional support team?


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Nov 19, 2015)

mefizto said:


> He also fails to see any reason for setting up an additional file sharing protocol, _e.g._, NFS with associated problems




You've already got "associated problems."

SMB is substantially slower on Unix than NFS (no surprise there, really).
This may be a matter of personally philosophy, but I myself think one shouldn't rely on non-native _network_ filesystems anymore than one would rely on non-native filesystems _on-disk_. Sure, you _can_ use NTFS for your home directory on Unix. Doing so is a terrible, terrible idea, but you can do it. Likewise, NFS was designed to share files between Unix-like systems; SMB, between Windows systems. Use the right tools for the job. 

EDIT: If you're the sole user of the NAS (or at least the sole user of certain shares), you can turn file locking off.


----------



## mefizto (Nov 22, 2015)

Greetings gentlemen,

Hi talw,

No, I did not look at commercial offerings.

Hi ANOKNUSA,

Not to sound pedantic, but I do not have NFS associated problem of running two network filesystems; this is exactly what I want to avoid, I have SMB problem.  Maybe that I am worried unnecessarily, but I do not like complicate issues.

Kindest regards,

M


----------



## jasonvp (Dec 5, 2015)

mefizto said:


> Not to sound pedantic, but I do not have NFS associated problem of running two network filesystems; this is exactly what I want to avoid, I have SMB problem.  Maybe that I am worried unnecessarily, but I do not like complicate issues.



I know this thread is a couple of weeks old, and perhaps the OP has already found his answer.  I agree 100% with ANOKNUSA when he said:


			
				ANOKNUSA said:
			
		

> Use the right tools for the job.


There's no reason your NAS can't export via two, three, or four different protocols.  Setting each one up is a bit different than the others, but none of it is terribly difficult.

I've been documenting my conversion from Linux to FreeBSD, and one of my entries discusses the NAS I built and getting the filesystem exported via NFSv3, NFSv4, SMB, and AFP.  Try it out.  It's not difficult at all.


----------

