With NFS, a user or a system administrator can mount all or a portion of a file system. Your wisdom is appreciated. NFS is unix's default file sharing protocol. Sun Microsystems developed NFS in the mid-1980s with the goal of enabling file system resources to be shared over a network at a speed comparable to local file access.

I have run sequential and random benchmarks and tests with rsync. We have observed the same differences in CIFS vs. NFS performance during development and testing of SoftNAS. I don't know much about CIFS (from Novell), but I get the impression that it's at least got a security mechanism. Hi All, I can't quite find the answer to this question. – user162741 Mar 3 '13 at 23:09 Trying to find out what's the best way to go. NFSv2 was the first version released outside of Sun. NFSv2 was the first version released outside of Sun. So I'm bringing back (again) the old NFS vs Samba debate for file sharing!
NFS vs. CIFS.
If you need to mount your share on unix, use NFS. This is my point of view on those two technologies : NFS is fast and easy to setup, and uses Linux rights which is pretty straightforward. Generally, though, you will pick the protocol you're using based on the OS of the clients you'll be accessing the data from. Yes you can use samba to share and mount files on linux, but NFS is noticably quicker on larger files, and more stable. NFS (version 4) gives security but is almost impossible to set up. Samba will probably be a bit slower but is easy to use, and will work with windows clients as well.. Reply. I'm looking for thoughts on the age-old CIFS vs NFS debate. Some NAS systems are also able to share both, NFS and SMB. NFS stands for “Networked File System.” It was developed by Sun Microsystems and serves essentially the same purpose as SMB (i.e., to access files systems over a network as if they were local), but is an entirely different protocol. I can confirm that async NFS is much faster than sync NFS, and Samba does edge out NFS for the benchmarks we have run using ATTO benchmark software. For Linux based clients I always choose NFS. Website Find. Read/follow the forum rules. The main problem is the complete lack of decent security. Samba now runs on multiple platforms and is a mainstay on most Linux distros. NAS Performance: NFS vs. SMB vs. SSHFS. NFS and Samba both are used for File sharing, There are below differences are : Samba will probably be a bit slower but is easy to use, and will work with windows clients as well.. NFS (version 4) gives security but is almost impossible to set up. NFS is unix's default file sharing protocol. The main problem is the complete lack of decent security. User vs Machine vs Share Authentication. Samba implements CIFS network protocol. Samba's core purpose was to bridge the differences between windows network file systems, and *nix network file systems. The file system smbfs is an older FS, originating form the Samba project, that was heavily coupled with the Samba tools (smb.conf, smbmount, etc.). It may be worth noting that when I was at CMU in 1995 they were talking about moving to DFS; they seem to have found enough problems with it that they're developing their own system (Coda) rather than using it, though. If your question is meant as "what is the difference between the smbfs and cifs file system type of the mount command on Linux?" Samba competes more in the NFS local-file-sharing category. In the realm of computers, file systems and network protocols, two names often surface ‘“ the NFS and the CIFS. then I have an answer for you. These acronyms sound too technical, because indeed they are really tech related, not to mention, understanding each concept requires some background in computer networking and its various applications.