LisPiMar 3

One benefit NFS & 9p have over sshfs though is that it's a lot easier to expose a read-only chroot with them.

Sure one can do the same with sshfs but the sheer amount of additional configuration needed gets a bit silly.

sshfs & 9p are both most likely more reliable than NFS though.

Show threadKlaus FrankMar 3

@lispi314
Tbh I really despise 9p. For whatever reason it just always fails to be setup properly. I kinda gave up on trying to fix it by now.

What are you using that it apparently just works and that you'd consider it reliable?

#9p

Show threadLisPiMar 3

@agowa338 Not sure about reliability, I've used it a few times with diod.

My post is more a testament to the sheer clusterfuck that is NFS' cache management with nfs-ganesha (which is supposed to be higher reliability than the kernel's (a pretty low bar), that's sort of its entire branding nonsense) and apparently cross-version incompatibility bullshit (upgrading mostly Debian-based homelab I saw some "interesting" behavior).

Show threadLisPiMar 3
@agowa338 I mostly refuse to use networked filesystem & device servers that integrate into the kernel because the second something goes wrong it starts fucking up kernel memory and at best requires a full system restart to fix, which is unacceptable.
Show threadKlaus Frank

@lispi314

Huh, never hit one of these bugs. But I keep hitting FUSE bugs, where anything going wrong while a syscall that the kernel delegated to a FUSE is getting stuck the entire process that made that call becomes unkillable and you've to reboot the entire system...

(Like e.g. when an application tries to write a file into the FUSE mounted filesystem and the backend fails in a weird way)

and because you can't kill that process you can't remount the filesystem either...

Mar 3 at 3:33amWeb
Show threadLisPiMar 3
@agowa338 Kernel NFS had a fun habit of doing the same thing, with extra problems sprinkled on top.

It's why I dropped it in the first place.