Since this is on frontage, a gentle reminder, dear reader, sshfs is looking for maintainers, and currently does not have any.
back
5 comments
Yea, I'm a heavy user of sshfs and am nervous about this.
You can maintain it, and get the associated glory and fame!
(it honestly seems relatively finished, so I don't think there's all that much work, either.)
I did consider that. But then a cursory look at the open issues proved that I don’t have the requisite knowledge, and resources (various platforms that it supports)
Then there is Rclone which can do sshfs alike mounts
Until you need to write, at which point you run into a litany of quirks that stem from the fact that rclone is designed to work with fancy remote kv-stores and has no idea how to partial-update.
Though from quick skim of https://rclone.org/sftp/ it seems you have to configure each remote. With sshfs you don't need to do any configuration apart from ~/.ssh.
The situation is much worse than I had imagined; the parent project, libfuse, is also in need of a maintainer.
Any more modern alternatives than sshfs that people should be looking into using?
Tailscale + NFS or Tailscale + SMB
SSHFS is fun but there are easier ways to accomplish the same thing.
How is sshfs not easy? It's the simplest form of a remote mount.
Those combinations are far more complicated than using the same transport and firewall rules that you've already configured.
Its not simpler when you consider that ssh needs an open port on your router.
Really? How do you manage those servers in the first place?
If i had the necessary skills i would for sure help this project, i have used it more times than i can count :/
I’m a little ambivalent about sshfs. It would be sad to see it die out. On the other hand I’ve only ever seen it misused.
misused in which ways?
Production systems with sshfs mounts criss-crossing servers, rather than having proper centralised fileserver.
It’s not the fault of sshfs, but it attracts people who just creates the messy systems.