File sharing on Windows is bad this is how to make it better
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- By default Windows uses SMB/CIFS, which is sub-optimal for performance and security. This is how to change to NFS and get better file sharing on any Windows machine.
Toolbox: christitus.com... .
►► Digital Downloads ➜ www.cttstore.com
►► Reddit ➜ / christitustech
►► Titus Tech Talk ➜ / titustechtalk
►► Twitch ➜ / christitustech
There's a big caveat: Windows does not allow non-ANSI characters for files in NFS shares. I tried this, but since I'm in a non-English environment, file names got mangled.
I've noticed this also, unfortunately
This is why i stopped using NFS.
For me this is just as bad. Going back and forth between EN/JP/KR and having tons of non-English characters that get mangled by the network share simply makes NFS a non-starter. I use later versions of SMB tied to a server that will only connect shares to computers on this subnet.
That kills it for me as well. Thanks for the heads up before I waste my time.
If someone came here, like me, looking for a solution for shared folders over NFS under Windows 10, then the solution is in the region and system language settings. There is a section "Administrative language settings" where you can select UTF-8 as the system encoding 1. This works for filenames in mounted network drives. In the picture 2 a whole partition with the Ext-4 file system is shared over NFS from Ubuntu (running in a virtual machine) and is natively mounted in Windows.
CIFS/SMB has always had more overhead out of the gate. However, NFSv4 does support user authentication and you can also tunnel it through SSH as an option if you're worried about security (NFSv4 can also do ACLs). The only caveat is that it'll add in overhead and may be on par or heavier than CIFS/SMB depending on how it was secured so there may be a performance hit (there's a LOT of variables involved when securing it that'll change depending on how it's being done). Even so, SMB is still easier to deal with in a large enterprise setting with hundreds of users for setting up permissions. Basically after going through all the effort to secure NFS and increasing the overhead, many admins could've just used SMB and been done with it.
That being said, it depends when choosing one for a Windows client. Both have their place, and while I'm not praising Microsoft (SMB really should be more efficient than it is, and I'm not a fan of their NFS implementation either), there's a solid case to be made for both protocols. I only wish Microsoft would do better about supporting open standards like NFS. There is literally no technical reason why they can't make a good graphical tool for it and update how Windows supports it. Therefore it's just them trying to be proprietary over open standards....as usual.
If you're maintaining a network you generally don't want to have to worry about putting out fires and using NFS on a Windows network seems like you're opening the door to possible longterm maintenance headaches for little gain. Windows should be pushed to use it but I kinda doubt it will since it will make support more complicated unless they do double duty and make the file share tool create shares in both when setting up and prefer NFS when both clients support it. Plus I don't see Windows want to make it easier to communicate with Mac and Linux.
I suspect he's never dealt with NFS identity mapping and the maintenance required to do it for large scale enterprise networks. The whole approach of blanketing directories with "other" having read, write, execute access because ACLs do not work correctly with active directory security principals unless you map user IDs and group IDs is absolutely ridiculous and insecure.
Another great video. "Microsoft, do better" is something needed to be said ever since Windows 7.
it's so weird that passionate people that love to code and create, just don't seem to care that their product is only getting worse and worse
... for that you would have to get rid of Satya Nadella.
They actually did with Windows 8.1
It used to be possible to print a list of the contents of a folder 'copy>prn'. Why is it not possible to do that in any version of Windows?
@@lizardltd no one said they were passionate
NFS is a great tool, but in my view it loses in security in a desktop environment. With CIFS/SMB I have the option of putting the share protected by username and password, so that any user on the network with valid credentials can access the share.
The same goes for ACLs applied on the created shares, they work too.
NFS loses all this, or releases it via IP/DNS, which is less dangerous for the server environment, but in a local environment I don't think it is and anyone will have access to the data.
That is, despite the risks, I believe that a Linux or BSD server running samba is the best option for general purpose file sharing!
Good points, in small networks I love using NFS for the boost in performance, but for big business and folks that need user-based access controls on the shares, SMB makes much more sense. Just depends on the use case and what folks are trying to achieve.
SMB 1/2 shouldn't be options anymore though, those early protocol version are riddled with vulnerabilities and NFS would be far more secure in that instance.
Another thing is losing SMB direct or even just multi channel. NFS can do those things too but it's sure as hell is not as "Enable and it works". And all the search extensions etc that just don't work over the Windows NFS implementation.
@@ChrisTitusTech NFS protocol does not really have security as security is expected to be handled on client side (unlike CIFS), even on very tight Linux krb5 world still all NFS is easily accessible by any root.
I know you use Synology NAS box but it would be good if you showed the opposite side. Doing this from Debian or Ubuntu server e.g how to create an NFS share to be used for Windows.
Totally agree with a video on configuring a NFS server! Basing it on Ubuntu Server would be great.
I had a similar thought, but more that I am too lazy to setup NFS server on my little ubuntu server box. Should be easy to track down a howto though.
If you decide to try, I created NFS shared about two months ago for Ubuntu, Arch, and Raspberry Pi machines. It took about 10 minutes of searching and 5 minutes of doing. You totally can do this. The Arch wiki is a great resource and since NFS is not new, there are plenty of HOW-TOs. That said, a video from Chris would be very welcome.
Regarding changing PowerShell commands: Install-Windowsfeature is used on Windows Server OS, on desktop Clients the command is Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature. As far as I know this has always been the case. It is confusing however...
Thanks for the analogy on the forward and back slashes, I always struggled with it.
AFP shares are deprecated on MacOS, Apple switched over to smb (even for time machine) as the default
Strange, when editing my videos in Mac using FCP, I can't even create project files on a SMB share... but NFS is works perfectly. Good to hear them removing AFP though.
@@ChrisTitusTech SMB has always been restricted on FCP. There was a hack back in the day where you would wrap your project in a .dmg image. That was a crappy work around though.
Also a note about the shell, you can run the same command from PowerShell, just have to be aware or escaping or format requirements. All standard commands like mount will work if you format properly.
Hey Chris, you reckon you could show how this is done in Linux? SMB really sucks on some distros through the file manager. It would be good to see how to use NFS in Linux. Cheers
Great nfs-on-windows walkthrough! Would love a follow up video on how win-to-nix user mapping and permissions work.
Anecdotally: TrueNas SMB on 10gbe is plenty to edit 4K 8bit 4:2:0 over network using Davinci Resolve. Even works over wifi6 but with worse latency when scrubbing. You could likely achieve the same for your synology NAS with some tuning.
How does one set this up good sir, I have been trying and the performance is mediocre. I have almost 0 cpu usage, crap transfer speed. Which makes no sense.
Would be cool to include a somewhat test in the video as well, showing how NFS is faster than SMB.
Thanks for the video!
I wouldn't call NFS the "default" on linux. Nowadays everyone uses SMB and if you right click share in dolphin or nautilus, it creates a samba share. And as others have said in the comments, NFS has its downsides, too. I prefer to use neither.
Yea, just use a USB thumb drive to transfer data between to devices.. Listen to this guy.
@@joseroman1967 I didn't say that.
@@joseroman1967 😂😂
Just wanted to say thankyou for the windows tool. Im not the best with windows, and its been such a help when im helping my tech unsavvy mates fix up their windows machines
Just to add my two cents because I tried to follow your tutorial today: don't name the .bat file "mount.bat". It would make the command loop as it is a Windows command.
Thanks again Chris for one more tutorial
I don't like having to fiddle with the command line just to share some files between two devices, especially when I only need to make a quick backup and the devices aren't mine. To me, it's frustrating to see it's 2022 and still there isn't a quick and simple, graphical and FREE way to share files between Linux, Android, Windows, and other OSes. Most of the time I end up using FTP, which is the same I was using over 20 years ago.
Thisssssssss
I love how you casually just dissed windows with the back and forward slashes
So FYI, on 10gbe SMB is 100% capable of editing directly off of a network attached storage. I have done it for almost a decade and with with teams of people editing from the same NAS before. You are probably referring specifically to final cut X which does require NFS. That is just a Mac FCP X limitation. It has something to do with the library files they use.
The overhead for SMB is higher than NFS, and it is sensitive to network congestion and latency. We get around 120MB per second over 10Gb fiber within one datacenter. But that drops to only 15MB per second when SMB is transfering to our other data center, even though there are multiple multi gigabit links to the internet from each datacenter.
@@javaman2883 yeah 100% there is a ton more overhead for smb. All the security features and such. There is also jumbo packages to consider depending on the size of the data you are trying to stream.
Networking is a complex topic and bottle necks are everywhere. I was just commenting based on something Titus said in the video. That a user can’t edit directly off of a NAS with smb. That’s not a true statement. It is possible and I have done it in an industrial setting. I found it to be fast and reliable for both Mac and windows.
I have also used nfs and it was okay. I think it was lower latency but we actually saw better speeds over all from SMB. Also the NAS we used at the time had a network recycling bin feature that only worked when users where connected via smb. So if someone deleted a file it was stashed in a hidden recycling bin and easy to recover for 90 days.
@@dustatron You're kind of right but one could also say that you can technically edit from a mechanical hard drive. You can do it but the experience is just very poor. On Windows nfs doesn't seem to be that performant (from my experience) but going from smb to nfs (on Linux) is almost as significant as going from hard drives to SSDs. You'll just get so much lower latencies and IOPS than what is possible through nfs.
@@lukas_ls I think you can disable encriptions and other security features on smb to get better speeds. Do note that you need to have a raid capable of the bandwidth required and a switch that achieve 10gbe.
But I am not trying to say either is 100% wrong for any use case. NFS has its benefits but it is a little more complicated to set up.
Thanks for this, I love learning new tools, even if they are old to some of you guys!
ironically, SMB has always been slow on Windows Servers, but seems to run at 110% network capacity on all my Synology servers
Your tweet about the change in syntax is incorrect. It has not changed but there where 2 options one from DISM and one from Server Manager module. Server Manager version was the first that could use remote sources if feature source was not availble local. However that option was also later added in the DISM module. Microsoft finally decided to remove one of the 2 options because it makes no sense to have 2 teams develop and maintain the same functionality.
Thank you. Exactly the tool I’ve been looking for to get away from SMB.
Thanks,
John
Great video! using this for 2 years :) In order to have rw rights, after you will deal with the /etc/exports file make sure to check the user and group id of the user which owns the exported folder and also to add the same values as decimal DWORDs AnonymousUid and AnonymousGid in the regedit path explained into the video. This solution is working just fine since 20h1 and also in windows 11.
Authenticating simply by an IP seems kinda vulnerable. Anyone in the network could just statically configure his network interface to give himself the required IP to access the share. Is there an easy way to mitigate this and if not, would Kerberos based authentication help?
If you have other people you don't know/trust on your local network then you HAVE MUCH BIGGER problems. I use encrypted volumes for everything important.
@@x91w In every company there are tons of people you don't want on some of your file shares, partly because of segmentation, partly because not everyone needs to see everything.
TBH, you probably shouldn't be running this over an unencrypted link in that case anyways. Personally, I tend to use sFTP rather than regular filesharing just because it does pretty much everything better. If both sides support it, scp is also great.
But really, Windows has a bunch of issues with this sort of thing and unless you're wanting to spend the time and money to address it, you're better off not bothering with any of those bits as there's better standalone products out there. Or, just do like I do and create a Raspberry Pi fileserver to handle filesharing.
Can't quite see the link of the performance comparison but I already know what their mistake is (: one side of the link is not talking smb2, which is a common problem for a lot of tools written in Java. Correctly implemented smb2 tends to outperform NFS in most real world usage.
Chris, I think you've mentioned in various videos that you mount your home directories from NFS on all your linux systems, I think that would make an interesting follow-up video to this one.
You can boot a full linux off nfs if you want to.
Late and unrelated to the reasons in the video. For some random reason, SMB shares started playing up on Windows to Synology. If I used torrents it'd make file browsing crawl to a stop/crash. Moving to NFS solved this. I can not figure out why SMB suddenly stuffed up.
You should do Steam Deck videos. I would love to see the crazy things you do. I have been trying to figure out for sharing for "cloud save" for emulators. Playing on a handheld then jumping to your desktop with no loss in progress would be DOPE
you are the best windows guy on youtube, They should hire you,
Years ago I was put in a charge of a stack of Linux machines running at an ISP. One of the things they did was setup 2 machines with Raid 1 in them. All the other machines nfs share back to those 2 machines. So when you booted the other machines. They would start to boot then fail. Among other things. The person who set them up found some kind of article to setup a strange boot sequence. It would cut down on replacement / setting up the other machines. Sort of like a bootrom setup but have 1/2 of the linux install on the machine, then the other 1/2 (config files, data files, etc.) on the machines with raid. As I replaced and reloaded the machines. I had the full linux install on the machine. The only thing I would go back to the nfs share was for data. This lead to the issue of if for some reason the connection between the 2 machines failed. They would not re-establish the connection automatically. Thinking about Microsoft and have the red X in the file explorer not reconnecting until you clicked on it. I thought this was inux and it had to be better. After hunting around. Not only did I setup an auto-reconnect built into the nfs sharing. I increased the access time too.
8:55 - so true! Like config.sys with all the drivers haha!
Those times were so great!
well it's not working for me, how about a guide how to set nfs share in linux and mount that under windows ? that would help. This is very limited to synology.
cool, but what if you can't map IPs to users for reasons like not having a synology NAS GUI or using DHCP on the clients? then you're stuck with free-for-all access to all allowed IPs that can communicate with the NFS server unless you start spending hours learning kerberos. i'm actually going back from using NFS+SMB to only using SMB in my network for simple and effective security.
I have to ask, what do you use for your green screening? The image of you, overlaid on your video looks really good.
.bat files, brings back memories. I had one that was 32k in size
Great video thanks - when mapping out the drives - wouldn't the NFS maps be just as susceptible as the SMB maps? - once the drive is mapped (and set to auto map with a script) the dBag that is trying to ransomware you connects - he's gonna grab all those mapped drives regardless - not sure I see how one is more secure than the other once the connection is made.
Tried NFS on Windows server 2022, 2 big problems: 1. Windows NFS only support ANSI characters 2. UID/GID mapping for linux clients, otherwise it will create permission hell.
You mentioned performance increase, how much more could we expect over a 1G connection?
I'll be turning over to a 10g soon, but just curious for now
About to set this up on a 1 gigabit network, leaving this comment here in the meantime so I can get back and update you with the results
He mentioned a performance increase in context of smaller files. Assuming that to be the case, this just leaves the performance of the receiving media.
Hi. I only have 2 computers, no NAS, one shares music to the other, do I have to use this protocol? thanks!
The only downside to NFS is the lack of clear way to restrict access compared to SMB with ACLs. Logging in as anonymous and all can see data is bad. I mean sure there is Kerberos authentication for NFS4 but it is a pain to setup, might be worse than SSH.
I'm unfamiliar with NFS. The idea of limiting access by IP address/range could be concerning for some users. Is there an augmented version of NFS or a Linux NFS alternative that provides increased security? PuTTY for instance can use certificates for accessing Linux servers. SCP can use an encrypted ssh tunnel for accessing files. I'm hoping Linux has pulled together some of these technologies to create an SSH/PKI challenge-response mechanism to limit access to files. For performance I understand not wanting to encrypt all file transfers but for many restricting access beyond their IP address would be necessary.
I am not familiar either but it seems a limitation from client side. He connects with anonymous user what seems a Windows side problem.
NFS is very simple protocol. It just restricts by IP. Permissions for files are inherited from the Linux permissions. You can have more complex permissions with NFS ACL. If you want more security (login, etc.) then you need to add Kerberos which is considered PITA to setup and I don't know if Windows supports it.
Normally for home environment people don't care that much about security because you have full control over the network and every device on it.
@@ivailogeimara I don't recall properly but I remember when I was in college, I had to set up a NIS server with NFS for home folders. I don't really remember if with this setup you need to be autenticated first to mount NFS or NFS can be mounted at any time.
Thank for your explanation, I will do my research on the subject. :)
Sun’s Network Information System (NIS) is deprecated, so your step up in permission management is LDAP, i.e. OpenLDAP, AD, NDS. That’s basically how you get Kerberos (to oversimplify), and yes , setup is a PITA.
NFS is old and very simple.
NFS V1 was only for in-house experiments by Sun
NFS V2 came in 1989
NFS V3, 1995
NFS V4, 2000
NFS V4.2, 2016
Good info. I’ve extracted the 'button' code to make a simple install batch file. Thanks.
I have a lot of thinking on this one, thank you for summing it up
By default NFS is not encrypted. SSHFS is encrypted by default and offers better performance than SMB. Microsoft Windows also supports SSHFS through addon software component. Isn't it a better choice over NFS?
Everything sound cool, thanks for share this knowledge, but why do you use el ol' PowerShell? In the other hand, I tried to copy files in Linux (from 4 Kb to 24 Mb, in local and networked scenarios) and the result is the same as in Windows, Linux 4.x/5.x and Windows 10/11 take several time to copy those files that my old Pentium 3 PC does in seconds under Windows 98 SE. So, what are we talking about here?
Really would have been nice if you had linked the github you started with instead of just your own links, not everyone runs a synology box and having the original guide to follow for a standard linux NFS setup without having to read a URL from your video is very helpful.
Will definitely try this on my old Zyxel 325 NAS which only supports SMBv1. It should support NFS and I only use Windows clients, so this is the perfect tutorial for me!
I love how you used the picture of The Undertaker in the thumbnail 😂
Every time I've tried NFS with Windows clients, there has been a lot of UI unresponsiveness and mount instability, such that SMB ends up getting in the way or standard user interaction less. Has something changed about this?
Yup, NFS has locking and file handling issues with Windows clients. Sadly, I don't believe he's ever used SMB hosted on a Linux system. I have numerous large scale SAMBA servers running on Linux in conjunction with CTDB with several hundred clients, all capable of delivering line speed. Sure, SAMBA is a very chatty protocol, but in terms of security and complexity it is far easier to deploy than a 20-year-old legacy protocol such as NFS. For anyone looking for extremely high performance, they usually use different clustered file server solutions and then re-export them using SAMBA. The lack of Linux experience seems to show in this video.
Ever since Windows 7 the NFS is available in add and remove section as a part of the Microsoft package. The only limitation is you need Professional, Enterprise, Server, or Ultra edition. I been using NFS in Windows since 12 years ago. I am not sure the Microsoft version of NFS is better then the open source version for Windows
I'm curious about this too. Would be interesting to see some comparisons.
I have a Synology NAS DS218 that I setup access to from my Windows 10 Pro PC. I setup access to the NAS using both (Synology Control Panel) File Services *SMB*, and File Services * NFS*. I then proceeded to test copying a large file (~4.3 GBs) from my local hard drive to the NAS over each logical connection. In my experience, I saw a slightly slower throughput 10.3 - 10.5 MB/s ( Avg) using the NFS connection -vs- using the SMB connection where I saw better throughput Avg ~11.3 - 11.5 MB/s. I even went into the "Advanced Settings" and changed the "read packet & write packet" sizes to 32 KB for each and re-tested with no improvement. Am I missing something? I don't see the speed improvement using NFS over SMB as touted in the above post. In fact, I would say SMB has a slight advantage in speed for copying this large file. I do realize that Chris mentioned "small files", but I would think this "supposed speed improvement" would also be noticed on large files as well... ? What am I missing and/or NOT doing right that I'm not seeing a speed performance using NFS? I'm sticking with SMB for now as it seems to be the obvious choice for performance.
Very interesting! However, it is not for me. Good job!
By the way, your channel offers a unique service. I have been following you since late 2018 and have been learning a lot.
Thank you for the great work offered.
Finally, I am Brazilian and the way you speak is very easy to understand and practice my poor English. Thanks again!
Woah, cool tools Chris.
Does it "Debloat" as well?
Thank you Chris, this is what I've needed for soooo long
I know it's maybe my machine but I just tried NFS vs Samba and still getting the same 50 megabits down from my truenas to windows. The kicker is I can do 105 writes. (SSD array)
But from my Mac I can do closer to 80. its frustratingly slow.
Wonderful explanation kind sir. Job well done! Thanks a bunch.
Good video. Suggestion: Next video going to be sshfs and windows! :)
The fact that this feature is in windows and disabled by default with no gui to enable it is pretty dumb. It makes it worse that you can't create an NFS share in the regular versions on windows
Hello!!! of course there is a GUI, that you don't know that is not Windows fault!
@@franciscooteiza they didn’t show it in the video. Send me a tutorial that shows it being done in the GUI
Thanks! Just got my unraid nfs shares mounted.
Looking at the image background of your post I though that your video was about 2 prison inmates getting ready to take a shower 😁
In my experience: Windows 10 **HATES** SAMBA. With older versions of windows, connecting to samba was a cinch. Now, you have to fight with it, and fight with it, and fight with it. Nothing "just works." When I google the issue, I get about about 1000 different "fixes." I guess I'm supposed to try them one at a time and hope something eventually works.
Make sure you create the share with v3 and you'll be fine. v1 is instantly rejected in Win10 and rightfully so, because it has TONs of security flaws.
Sadly is one of those cases that Windows don't do it because of backwards compatibility. But i believe they could make it work
probabiy the performance boost is because nas box is unix base. I think if you map smb beetween two windows boxes it will perform just fine
Can you do something like "cheap used inifiniband network between different OS PCs and do NFS with RDMA from linux share do linux pc and windows PCs" kinda thing?
Worked here on my 10-year old SMB-v1-only ReadyNAS but it is extremly slow. Couldn't even copy a single file, only view them. Any tips to increase the speed?
The brutality is NFS has no simplified tooling. Period. Windows has all the basic tooling embedded in the OS down to right click folder level, permissions and ACLs. If NFS and its cohorts want to climb into position to replace SMB, its not that their things is bad, its that their tool is arcane, people think its clever, and until that changes, good luck.
If I really want to be blunt, then so be it. Both SMB and NFS have such baggage, that maybe its real that we need a modernised, multi platform, file sharing, well engineering replacement, with tooling right into the UI. We won't get it, but anyway.
The only thing that proves the CVE vulnerability search is that SMB is a more widely used protocol. If you do the same search today the first 6 listed are Linux SMB implementation vulnerabilities 🤦♂
iSCSI is even worse. I setup a drive in my NAS as an iSCSI drive. Figured it would show up as just another driver letter. Lightstat! iSCI requires a continuous verified sub-second connection or else it times out and won't reconnect unless you go in remove the drive from the iSCSI and recreate it. This event occurs in the middle of a file transfer! The other fun part is security. Since the laptop I created the drive on has BitLocker installed the newly created iSCSI drive automatically got BitLocker encrypted using the laptop's key. Now if I want to connect any other laptop to the drive, I must now use that laptop's encrypted key. It's great having to hand out an encryption key like candy to all the users in the department that are accessing the drive. Needless to say that laptop is now kept in a safe and not user-accessible and has no secure data on it. Its been relegated to a test machine. Windows 8, 8.1, 10, and 11 all have this issue. So I do not recommend using iSCSI drives except in an enterprise environment where the equipment is running on a windows server and is fast enough and active enough to keep the connection alive.
So I'm still using SMB for my home non-server network. I File Share with just 4 different IDs between each devices. I run three VMs on one system, with access restricted to that device.
its trickier when the share is smb AND nfs and you have active directory authentication involved. our Synology box isn’t very good about user ID mapping between Linux/Windows either. would like to use NFS at work though.
If you get an error that says Parameter cannot be processed because the parameter name 'o' is ambiguous. When you use the mount command
Change mount in the command to mount.exe
I tried to reproduce the positive NFS transfer rates.
I used a Proxmox Hypervisor and ran two VMs with a VirtIO network connection.
Two Windows Server 2022 VMs with internal NFS support activated. One with NFS share, one with NFS mount.
In all measurements the NFS protocol performs much much worse compared to simple CIFS. Even with small files and so on. I used diffent SSD performance measurement tools, simple file copys and running some apps from the network drive. All worse with NFS.
What am I missing?
Is the Windows Server 2022 NFS implementation that bad?
I guess the Proxmox VirtIO setup perfekt for such a compare?
from a amature hobbiest editors view. i want to collab on a local network with two computers .editing sharing and rendering animations creating image sequences . Would i simple samba file serving setup be good to start with and get thing done fast, instead of a full blown truenas setup?thx
Nice video, Chris!
Question for wann-be powerish user: I have an old mini computer running Windows 7 and I'm using this to share files with the family. Does this need to run NFS as well as our laptops? I've contemplated playing with FREENAS, but no time/resources. Also, is it FASTER to map everything with the IP address? Similar video, they mapped to the computer name.
I have both types of shares on my TrueNAS, for different use cases. With SMB I can saturate the link (10Gbps) so I really don't care about the performance difference. What I do care about is ACL and reliability, and in my experience, NFS is a lacking.
You did not make a transfer test. I wonder!
Just LMAO at the thumbnail!!
For security side, there is no change really.
Yes SMB SERVER (as in Windows) have plenty of flaws, But you are using Samba anyway.
As for Ransomware, they will do there business as usual, NFS or SMB... The only thing they care is if there mounted in read write... (or if the credentials are cached so it can mount it itself, in that case it might be an extra point for NFS but in most cases, network shares are just mounted anyway so the underlying sharing tech is not important.)
As for speed, there is a massive difference indeed. I tried with a years old Mozilla firefox folder containing like 25000 files in 950MB. SMB do it in 45 min while NFS do it in less than 5... Network is a Hyper-V VM on the same machine.
that program is a dream, no internet surfing required:)
I just get 'Network Error -53' when trying to mount my PC to my Synology box. What other the prerequisites are there? You forgot to mention about 'Enable NFS' on Synology, which I've done, but think there is also something else I missed too.
SMB vulnerable NFS not ? Comparing a protocol with encryption and authentication(SMB) to one with neither(NFS).... hmmmm .... I am a Linux fan and user all the way but this video is poorly thought through, illogical, and largely meaningless.
Yeah, if you simply want to have personal files from the rest of your family, basic SMB authorizations is good enough. NFS is okay for Linux-based servers sharing public folders to desktop Linux, though.
If your local network is compromised to the point where that sort of encryption is needed, you got far worse problems than just NFS. No one should have access to the transfer to read it unless they have already hijacked a key point in your infrastructure. At that point everything is likely compromised regardless.
@@Zaicyn Well done on entirely missing my point. The point is that to compare a protocol (and code) with the requirements (and implementation) of authentication and encryption to one with neither is meaningless. NFS can not be "vulnerable" or "exploited" as it lacks ANY security. It is like comparing cars to skateboards and saying "the engines on the skateboards tend to be more reliable", they both have wheels, it is true, but at the same time utterly meaningless.
@@jonshouse1 I agree with you on this video. I didn't click "DISLIKE" because I liked seeing how to get NFS setup on Windows (something I didn't know you could do). Otherwise, I'm with you. I'm responding to this specific comment because NFS _can_ be exploited. A search on the CVE - Mitre website found 218 entries. SMB had the 476 entries, as shown in the video. Anyway, thanks for posting your comments. :)
@@TheCocoaDaddy The "number" of CVE is also meaningless... You do not need to "break into" a building with no doors or windows, you just walk in, same with NFS.... As you can clearly just walk in then pretending any of this is a vulnerability is the type of things that keep security researchers employed but means very little in the real world. At this point you are probably sorting NFS CVE by "remote code execution" in an attempt to "win" an argument, again I suspect entirely missing the point I was making ;-)
Another idea, i used to have .iso opened with an other app like 7z, but i couldn't select explorer to like for mounting a image .iso as a drive - so i realized thats messed up. Fortunatelly i have another win pc, i got extman an exported the file type .iso - it has really some regedit entries, on the failing win machine i imported it with extman to overwrite the filetyp and the mounting was back in context menu - Maybe something for your toolbox - 'restore .iso filetyp mounting' - regedit entries are the same for every machine win10/11
LOL Wow. Way to reinvent the wheel. Right click ISO file. Left click "Open With". If the rest isn't self explanatory, hit me up
@@stayupthetree that was the problem, no explorer to choose
Hi. I'm new here, also new on Windows11 (I'm a Linux-guy...). Somehow also this tool does not get it working. MS Windows11 home in English language just newly OEM installed.
Seems to be that also this script does not install NFS.
Is there any way to use the Linux system with some "sudo app install nfstools " or just a mount in Linux to get it working maybe? My home-network (several (older) PC's and some Pi's) all work with Linux and get their files on a little NFS fileserver and really don't want to install Samba for just one PC...
How can I make it not try to automount the share? I tried it out on a laptop and it does not like not having them available. It crashes the whole explorer.
I was able to connect to an NFS drive via a gui on windows no command line needed.
Doesn't look like MS want me to have this feature. Script finished OK, and say the feature is enabled, but in CMD calling nfsadmin returns "not recognized as an internal or external command". Guess I need to upgrade my Windows license to professional or something?
Another thing to validate is how many of those 400+ CVEs are still active and unpatched. I could probably pick any long lived protocol/software and find a list of vulnerabilities of them over their lifespan and make it look worse than it is.
Love the video though, I like choice.
Yeah I found it a bit disingenuous to blast the CVEs for SMB, without 1) Showing the CVEs for the protocol you are endorsing, and 2) not taking into account the amount of Samba implementations are responsible, or how many because of flaws in other non-Microsoft software.
I don't want anything complicated, I want it to work just right out of the box with no security at all. Just work. It's like a guy that sells houses with the most complicated security config file ever ont he front doors and windows, and nobody he sells them to understands it all, so they all just have to leave their doors and windows unlocked and the system off to just simply USE their house. This is SMB and NFS. It don't work out of the box, and the config files are too complicated for anyone on earth to understand.
As soon as you said "It can't share a folder" at the 2 minute mark I was like, why did you just waste all of our time then... literally, that is file sharing, that's what we wnat.
I just bought this Windows Toolbox based on this video, as I have been battling nfs mounting linux nfs exports to my windows machine. BUT the current version of the toolbox does not seem to have any tweak for NFS anymore? All I can see is a install feature under config to add NFS. But it dos not make any difference at all.
What did the config add NFS actually do?
How is performance over vpns with nfs ? I'm accessing my synology at home from work quite a bit, and the performance with smb is quite annoying. Will I gain a bit of performance transitioning over to NFS?
when i try to mount the network drive it says the command "mount" is not recognized as a command...
I am using cmd, non admin....
So I can't share my Windows files using NFS because Windows 10 doesn't have an NFS server? There's no software that can make up for this? NFS might be great for using Tdarr with.
Another video idea is to put a system like Pydio Cells in front of your NFS shares. I find sharing files via an URL accessible on any device that can run a browser can be quite useful.
Interesting.
i think you forgot to tell that it doesn’t work on windows 10 home. at least not on mine. i halve also synology, i dit exactly what you did, but my computer doesn’t have mount in cmd, only in powershell. but the -o option is not recognized and when i leave it out, the syntax of the share is wrong.
I tried this a year ago and got same dead end: No NFS in Windows 10 Home.
I have Windows 11 Pro, and I am getting the same thing...the -o option is ambiguous and cannot seem to get it to work, either.
@@SpockoMan I even upgraded to Win 11 pro and still cannot get this to work. Services for NFS does not appear in Windows Add and Remove Features and no mount.exe as weill...
Great video! Thank you for this, I am using a WD NAS but I'm sure I get this to work there as well.
For SQL file sharing to access database files, Windows file sharing is faster. Windows pro only has 20 share max. What alternative software can be installed on windows without getting a file server? I have QNAP and NFS file sharing for SQL database is slower than windows. What settings could be changed?
I am having a hard time mounting an NFS share, on a windows client, through public IP address. I tested an Ubuntu VM hosted by the same exact windows machine and it can mount the NFS through public IP with no problems. Could you guys please help? I've tried anything I had in mind, with no success. Thanks, and great video!
I've been wishing there was something else I could do for a while in Windows! I've just decided to deal with SMB, but I think this could provide me the option to switch over potentially. I'll have to try it and see if I like it better. It will work as long as I can do it between two different Windows machines. I'll have to find out if that's possible.
SMB/CIFS has always sucked on Windows. I learned early on not to do network file transfer tests with it as even back to back the transfer time for the same file wildly varies from test to test. FTP was always consistent, as was Netware and NFS.
What's worse is that SMB didn't used to do a good job of ensuring that files would be received correctly. I'm not sure if it's been fixed or not, but decades ago, it scrambled my entire MP3 collection as I was transferring it between my computers in other parts of the building.