mount -t nfs -o nfsvers=3,domain=mydomain,username=svc_account,password=password,noserverino nsnetworkshare.domain.company:/share/folder /opt/testnas
mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified
I couldn't find a mount -t nfs option example with username /password. So I think we can't use mount -t nfs with credentials.
Please pour in ideas.
Thanks,
Vishnu
CIFS is a file sharing protocol. NFS is a volume sharing protocol. The difference between the two might not initially be obvious.
NFS is essentially a tiny step up from directly sharing /dev/sda1. The client actually receives a naked view of the shared subset of the filesystem, including (at least as of NFSv4) a description of which users can access which files. It is up to the client to actually manage the permissions of which user is allowed to access which files.
CIFS, on the other hand, manages users on the server side, and may provide a per-user view and access of files. In that respect, it is similar to FTP or WebDAV, but with the ability to read/write arbitrary subsets of a file, as well as a couple of other features related to locking.
This may sound like NFS is distinctively inferior to CIFS, but they are actually meant for a different purpose. NFS is most useful for external hard drives connected via Ethernet, and virtual cloud storage. In such cases, it is the intention to share the drive itself with a machine, but simply do it over Ethernet instead of SATA. For that use case, NFS offers greater simplicity and speed. A NAS, as you're using, is actually a perfect example of this. It isn't meant to manage access, it's meant to not be exposed to systems that shouldn't access it, in the first place.
If you absolutely MUST use NFS, there are a couple of ways to secure it. NFSv4 has an optional security model based on Kerberos. Good luck using that. A better option is to not allow direct connection to the NFS service from the host, and instead require going through some secure tunnel, like SSH port forwarding. Then the security comes down to establishing the tunnel. However, either one of those requires cooperation from the host, which would probably not be possible in the case of your NAS.
Mind you, if you're already using CIFS and it's working well, and it's giving you good access control, there's no good reason to switch (although, you'd have to turn the NFS off for security). However, if you have a docker-styled host, it might be worthwhile to play with iptables (or the firewall of your choice) on the docker-host, to prevent the other containers from having access to the NAS in the first place. Rather than delegating security to the NAS, it should be done at the docker-host level.
Well I would say go with CIFS as NFS (Old) few of linux/Unix bistro even stopped support for it.
NFS is the “Network File System” specifically used for Unix and Linux operating systems. It allows files communication transparently between servers and end users machines like desktops & laptops. NFS uses client- server methodology to allow user to view read and write files on a computer system. A user can mount all or a portion of a file system via NFS.
CIFS is abbreviation for “Common Internet File System” used by Windows operating systems for file sharing. CIFS also uses the client-server methodology where A client makes a request of a server program for accessing a file .The server takes the requested action and returns a response. CIFS is a open standard version of the Server Message Block Protocol (SMB) developed and used by Microsoft and it uses the TCP/IP protocol.
If I have a Linux <-> Linux I would choose nfs but if it's a Windows <-> Linux cifs would be the best option.
–
–
–
–
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
