Hacker News Reader

I've used sshfs in the past and I know the original authors stopped maintaining it though others took over. I did find the network error handling wasn't the greatest. Like it would unmount the fuse mount due to network error and I'd be writing files to the local mount directory silently until space filled up. Perhaps its a Linux specific issue or I've used the wrong options though.

View on HN

To be honest, I knew about the speed limitations of sshfs already, so I typically use rsync to work with large files. This way, I wouldn't write the data locally even if the connection fails. I've checked the github repo and it looks like there are a number of issues related to network timeout that hasn't been addressed for a long time[1]. However, I mostly used it on OS X, so my experience might be different from yours Thanks for the info as well, I was under the impression sshfs was under active development (: [1]https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs/issues/77

> I'd be writing files to the local mount directory silently until space filled up

that's why you `chattr +i` the mountpoint

Reply on news.ycombinator.com