From my own experience, no real depth of knowledge here... I use NFS 
for my home shares. Painless with automount and nfsv4. I can't speak to 
widespread use in enterprise, but as a "casual" nfs user, it gets the 
job done nicely. I share a folder called ark from one of my servers and 
mount it on all of my machines. The ark lives on a mirrored zpool that 
is frequently snapshotted to another mirrored zpool on another server 
(I'm less of a zfs casual user, but that's an aside). I haven't lost a 
bit this way in the couple of years since I stood up the nfs share and I 
offloaded about 1TB of stuff I like to have on hand to the server. I 
tried Samba, ick, seems like windowism to me and I tried some NAS stuff, 
but nfs was fastest and simplest. I haven't really found anything better 
that works as painlessly as nfs, though I do look into alternatives 
every so often.

What else to try?

Thanks,

Will



On 8/13/25 11:43 AM, Tom Lyon wrote:
> BTW, my own opinions abut NFS can be seen in my "NFS Must Die!" talk 
> here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF_djcccKc&ab_channel=TomLyon 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF_djcccKc&ab_channel=TomLyon>
>
> Not that NFS *was* bad - but it *is* bad (for non-casual use).
> Like the C language, it was great for its time.  Not so much anymore.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 9:24 AM Peter Weinberger (温博格) via TUHS 
> <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
>     It was a research proof-of-princple. (i.e.. partly principled and
>     partly really hacky. My list of its issues was pretty long.)
>
>     (If A mounted B's file system somewhere, and B mounted A's, then the
>     directory tree was infinite. That's mathematics, not a bug.)
>
>     On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:18:34AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
>     > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:00???AM Douglas McIlroy
>     > > <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>     > > > I was always sorry that Peter Weinberger's RFS never made it
>     outside
>     > > > Bell Labs. It allowed networking between separately administered
>     > > > systems by mapping UIDs.
>     > >
>     > > I believe it did?  If I recall correctly, it was available
>     with System
>     > > V, though perhaps I am misremembering.
>     >
>     > Sunos had it, my office mate ported it.  I was unimpressed, it
>     worked well
>     > between the same archs but was riddled with byte order problems and
>     > ioctl calls that were not portable.
>