Several departments within a mid-sized company must browse and modify documents in a central location that keeps an existing folder hierarchy intact. Users on different virtual machines should be able to open and edit the same files at the same time, and the infrastructure team wants the least possible management overhead. Which storage approach will best satisfy these requirements?
A mounting-based approach enabling directories visible to authorized users
A container-based environment that binds data to the deployed application
An object repository that references data by unique identifiers
A block-level system granting each team a raw volume for exclusive use
A file-based share that is mounted over SMB or NFS maintains familiar folders and filenames. Because the share is presented as a single file system, any authorized workstation or VM can browse, open, and save documents without additional middleware. A raw block device offers no hierarchy until each team creates and manages its own file system, and concurrent access from multiple hosts requires a clustered file system or other tooling. Container layers and their ephemeral volumes follow the life cycle of the container image, not the needs of multiple independent users. Object stores locate data by unique keys in a flat namespace, which complicates interactive browsing and in-place editing.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the difference between SMB and NFS?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is a clustered file system and why is it necessary for block-level storage?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why are object storage systems less suitable for browsing and editing files in real-time?