"file server" which is better SSHFS or NFS for routine SOHO use

I have a desktop box that provides file and print services in my home office. The box has SAMBA installed (for the win-doze folks) along with both NFS and SSH.

I'm not a benchmark or high performance maven so I'm asking here. Which will be better for routine use:

• connect linux clients using NFS
• connect linux clients using SSHFS

I used NFS years ago and it was a pain in the administration. The SSH approach seems less
trouble even if it costs a bit of performance.

Thanks in advance,
~~~ 0;-Dan

1. you can use Samba for Linux clients as well, which would keep it simple

2. If you've got up to date Linux, then you can use NFSv4, which is a major rewrite and simpler to use eg no need for portmap service, its built-in, along with a few other things. Have a read

3. sshfs seems like overkill, unless you are planning to try and encrypt eg tunnel Samba as well.

Just some thoughts; its definitely your choice.

Originally Posted by chrism01 1. you can use Samba for Linux clients as well, which would keep it simple ...

Doh! Now why didn't I think of that?!?

This begs another question. How does SAMBA use compare with NFS where *nix permissions
and access controls (not ACL's -- access control lists) are concerned. I know that things
are fine where win-dose is concerned but I worry about *nix use of SAMBA permissions etc.

Thanks, again,
~~~ 0;-Dan

i prefer sshfs because it is almost as fast as nfs and easier to use (it can also mount directories outside of your network).
related thread:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...fs-4175448688/