On 17/02/2021 21:30, Chris Green wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>> On 17/02/2021 12:39, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:54:57 +0000
>>> Chris Green  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use sshfs all the time, since I have ssh set up to connect to every
>>>> system I'm interested in it's actually easier to use sshfs than setting
>>>> up nfs.
>>>
>>>        Apart from anything else sshfs doesn't require admin access to the
>>> server. IME though the latency in a remote FS mount either by NFS over VPN
>>> or sshfs over anything can be painful compared to using the command line
>>> and tmux over an ssh connection to a box or VM that's in the data centre
>>> where everything else is.
>>>
>> Well that again depends on your network speed. I now have a minimum
>> speed of 10Mbps up and that's as good as the coaxial ethernet NFS was
>> designed for
>>
>> But the huge advantage for ME is that NFS mounted remote filesystems
>> appear just like local ones. Its all nicely integrated
>>
> So do sshfs mounted ones.
>
>> Sure I use ssh for some stuff. But its nice to click on a directory and
>> open a remote server data area
>>
>> I dabbled with sshfs but for some reason I abandoned it in favour of NFS
>>
>> I cant remember why....
>>
> No, I can't see why.  If you have ssh configured to connect to a
> server then mounting its files using sshfs 'just works' with no
> further configuration at either end.
>
I think I couldn't get full root permissions in the same way I could
with NFS - had to mount as myself to take advantage of the passwordless
access...

No big deal, but it works the way it is now



--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05