I recently replaced an ancient laptop with a slightly less ancient one.
- host for backups
- serve files I don’t necessarily need on the new machine
- relatively lightweight - “server” is ~15 years old
- relatively simple - I’d rather not manage a dozen docker containers.
- internal-facing
- does NOT need to handle Android and friends. I can use sync-thing for that if I need to.
Left to my own devices I’d probably rsync for 90% of that, but I’d like to try something a little more pointy-clicky in my dotage.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
NFS is the best option if you only need to access the shared drives over your LAN. If you want to mount them over the internet, there’s SSHFS.
BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
See, this is interesting. I’m out here looking for the new shiny easy button, but what I’m hearing is “the old config-file based thing works really well. ain’t broken, etc.”
I may give that a swing and see.
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I’m at the same age - just to mention, samba is nowhere near the horror show it used to be. That said, I use NFS for my Debian boxes and mac mini build box to hit my NAS, samba for the windows laptop.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I agree, NFS is eazy peazy, livin greazy.
I have an old ds211j synology for backup. I just can’t bring myself to replace it, it still works. However, it doesn’t support zfs. I wish I could get another Linux running on this thing.
However, NFS does work on it and is so simple and easy to lock down, it works in a ton of corner cases like mine.
antithetical@lemmy.deedium.nl 2 weeks ago
NFS is easy as long as you use very basic access control. When you want NFSv4 with Kerberos auth you’re entering a world of pain and tears.
needanke@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Afaik Synology supports Btrfs which I honestly prefer at this point if you don’t need filesystem based encryption or professionall scaling and caching features.
pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
What about NFS over the internet?
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
You can use NFS over the internet, but it will be a lot more work to secure it. It was intended for use over a LAN and performance may not be great over the internet, especially with high latency or packet loss.
Keelhaul@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I would just create a point to point VPN connection and run it over that (for axample an IPsec tunnel using strongswan)
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 weeks ago
My one change: I do SSHFS over LAN, because of guest machines and sniffing potential.
I do NFS on direct wire or on a confidently set up VLAN (maybe).
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
I use exclusively sshfs, including in my lan, is there some downside to it?
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
SSHFS is slower than NFS due to the encryption and FUSE. It’s not a huge difference with a modern CPU and a 1 gbps connection, but it can be significant with an older CPU or a faster network.