I recently replaced an ancient laptop with a slightly less ancient one.

  • host for backups for three other machines
  • 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 or at least transparent in my dotage.

Edit: Not SAMBA (I freaking hate trying to make that work)

Edit2: for the young’uns: NFS (linux “network filesystem”)

Edit 3: LAN only. I may set up a VPN connection one day but it’s not currently a priority. (edited post to reflect questions)

Last Edit: thanks, friends, for this discussion! I think based on this I’ll at least start with NFS + my existing backups system (Mint’s thing, which is I think just a gui in front of rcync). May play w/ modern SAMBA if I have extra time.

Ill continue to read the replies though - some interesting ideas.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    9·
    4 days 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.zoneOPEnglish
      7·
      4 days 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.comEnglish
        5·
        4 days 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.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          Yeah, Samba has come a long way. I run a Linux based server but all clients are Windows or Android so it just makes sense to run SMB shares instead of NFS.

          • ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.comEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            I’ve always had weird issues with SMB like ghost files, issues with case sensitivity (zfs pool), it dropping out and me having to reboot to re-establish the connection… Since switching to Linux and using NFS, it’s been almost indistinguishable from a native drive for my casual use (including using a ssd pool as a steam library…)

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            3 days ago

            you and perhaps @curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com, may I ask if you use samba with portable devices, like laptops?

            I do and my experience is that programs that try to access it when I don’t have network access tend to freeze, including my desktop environment, but any file managers too if I click the wrong place by accident. but it occurs enough without user action too.
            oh and it breaks all machines at once if the server or network is down. which is rare but very annoying.

            did you experience this too? do you have some advice? is SMB just unsuitable for this?

            honestly I would prefer if the cifs driver would keep track of last successful communication, and if it was long ago instantly fail all accesses. without unmounting so that open directories and file handles keep being valid.
            and if all software on this world wouldn’t behave as if they were doing IO on the main thread. honestly this went smoother with windows clients but I’m not going back.

            • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              Only windows devices (laptop I use for work stuff). The other laptops are Linux (NFS) or Chromebooks (for the kids, no access).

              Devices don’t really leave often (aside from mine), so not much of an issue. If the NAS is offline, not much else would be going on either.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        3 days 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.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
      1·
      3 days 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).

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        3 days 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.

    • non_burglar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 days 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.