[CS-FSLUG] To SHFS or SSHFS...

[Tim Young]

The SSHFS webpages do not have much information about the tech specs, 
except through the fuse pages.  The fuse developers have had a fair bit 
of experience writing filesystems. 

The SHFS seems to be something first developed in college, then expanded 
out a bit.  But from some of the design considerations, and from some of 
their code-bases, they will probably have a decent system.

But, from the technical side of things, if you are going to be replacing 
NFS, it is probably more practical to go with a non-userspace product.  
A kernel module will be much more efficient than something running in 
user-space.  If this file-sharing will be used regularly (for every-day 
sharing of files) this will be important.  If it is being used for 
one-time applications, then it does not matter all that much.

The down-side, of course, to either of these, is the limited usage.  
NFS, for example, is used world-wide in nearly every predominantly *nix 
networking environment.  So finding local support (people at the church 
who are comfortable maintaining it) will be more difficult.  But that is 
just my perspective as someone who regularly supports other people's 
computers.  Incorporating either of these into a network will not be as 
seamless as adding the entry into the /etc/fstab file and watching it 
boot up.  :)  But, of course, I do not know the situation that inspired 
the change, so I realize I should be careful opening my mouth...

Blessings,

    - Tim Young

Don Parris wrote:

> ...that is the question.
>
> SHFS and SSHFS are two projects that could replace NFS as a secure 
> network filesystem in our proposed LS3.  However, what are the the 
> advantages of each?
>
>
> Here is the SHFS project:
> http://shfs.sourceforge.net/
>
> and the SSHFS project:
> http://fuse.sourceforge.net/sshfs.html
>
>
> ---------------
> O.k., here is my *limited* understanding so far.
>
> SHFS is simply a kernel module, like smbfs, with a userspace mount 
> utility (quoted almost verbatim from the project's web site).
> # file cache for access speedup
> # perl and shell code for the remote (server) side
> # could preserve uid/gid (root connection)
> # number of remote host platforms (Linux, Solaris, Cygwin, ...)
> # Linux kernel 2.4.10+ and 2.6
> # arbitrary command used for connection (instead of ssh)
> # persistent connection (reconnect after ssh dies)
>
>
>
> SSHFS, on the other hand, makes use of the FUSE filesystem and SSH to 
> accomplish the task.  Apparently, it's fairly simple to use.
>
>     *  Based on FUSE (the best userspace filesystem framework for 
> linux ;-)
>     * Multithreading: more than one request can be on it's way to the 
> server
>     * Allowing large reads (max 64k)
>     * Caching directory contents
>
>
> Based on what I can see, SHFS appears to be more mature/robust than 
> SSHFS. SHFS can make root connections, while SSHFS suggests running as 
> user, not root.  I assume that means it's best not to make connections 
> as root. Someone else may have a sense of whether this is an advantage 
> or disadvantage.  SSHFS has no need of server side configuration, as 
> SSH already supports the protocol.  That could be beneficial.
>
> Can anyone share thoughts on this?
>
> Blessings,
> Don
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
>
>
>