Sun, or Linux 2.4.x As An NFS Server?

Quixote asks: "Time was, that the only choice for a stable, interoperable NFS server was a Sun box. Now, things seem to be changing. Linux Kernel 2.4.2 is out, and with this come more choices. If I'm putting together a central NFS fileserver to serve a moderate amount of space (say 200GB) to a mainly Sun/Solaris clientele; should I go with a Sun box with a A1000 h/w RAID (at 3x-5x the cost of the other choice), or should I look at Linux with kernel 2.4.x + a journalling filesystem like ReiserFS/XFS/JFS, built on top of a dual-processor P-III with 2GB memory, a Mylex RAID controller and a Gbit NIC?" Are the issues which were raised in last discussion on NFS and Free OSes still a concern? Are there any Linux 2.4 NFS boxes out in production anywhere, and if so, how have they been holding up?

Re:Look seriously at a BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

For most installations, locking is not optional, ruling out the BSDs.

Re:Option C:

[Anonymous Coward]

and no locking.

The only people who would actually consider deploying NFS without any kind of locking protocol are the same morons who deploy MySQL and then wonder why inserts sometimes fail silently.

Re:AFS

[Wakko Warner]

This is why you use IP addresses in /etc/exports.

- A.P.

--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

Re:Look seriously at a BSD

[Matthew Weigel]

Just for posterity, I'll respond: locking is a problem for the BSDs , not server-side.

Linux NFS and comparing Apples to Apples...

[trims]

I actually have no problems with Linux NFS v3. Unfortunately, I'm not using one of the journaling FS (xfs/reiserf/ext3), and I have a couple of friends who have had problems with using the jFSes in combo with NFS3. I wouldn't consider it prime-time on Linux yet.

I have no experience with *BSD and NFS3, so I can't comment there.

A couple things to remember when looking at the hardware:

• Are you comparing Apples to Apples? By this I mean that your Sun system is probably something like a Netra T1 AC200 and a A1000 array (which would list for about $20k together), but is your PC system equivalent? By that I mean it had better be compared to a IBM xSeries 230 w/ external drive cage or a Compaq DL380 and drive rack, not Joe Schmoe's Local Linux Special.
• Have you factored in Support Costs? If you're a totally Sun shop, saving a couple of grand on a PC system isn't worth the extra hassle managing the vendor relationship for that one PC. If you're a mixed shop, I would only consider getting the PC from the company who makes the majority of your PC servers. Support is a big issue.
• Compare warrantees. Assuming your doing a production environment, do all the hardware systems come with a warranty that means your exacting requirements? If not, can you get an uplifted warranty (and what does that cost?)
• And lastly, what about your in-house expertise? Don't just think of yourself, because you might get sick / hit by a bus / quit and move to another job. The company needs to be able to competently manage the system for at least 3 years. Can they expect to do that with a reasonable turnover in the current employee base?

Good luck. Honestly, I'd investigate the *BSD solution for now, but I'd keep in mind that the upfront costs of the Sun system may actually be smaller than the long-term costs of the PCs.

-Erik

What about Solaris x86?

[Techno_Jesus]

Here is a partial suggestion and question.

What about Solaris x86? I know BSD has been mentioned, which has excellent NFS support, and uses PeeCee hardware. But since you say it is a mostly sun network, sol x86 could at least keep you consistant OS wise.

My question is, has anyone used x86 solaris in this situation? It seems that it may be a good option, allowing you to use PeeCee hardware, use a similar OS to your clients, and save some money on hardware. Last I knew x86 Sol had pretty decent raid controller support but I can't attest to that now.

-Aaron

Re:Use the same OS as the clients....

[Zwack]

Does anyone know how SAN devices would work in this kind of setting? 200 Gb is just about the smallest SAN device you coulld get, but presumably it would be more optimized than a real computer. But I'm not sure.

Do you Really mean SAN (Storage Area Network)? It sounds more like you mean NAS (Network Attached Storage) which is analogous to an NFS server. Usually these devices are capable of using NFS/SMB to share drives across the network.

Zwack

Use the same OS as the clients....

[scriptkiddie]

Use the same OS as your clients. In all the benchmarks I've seen, FreeBSD serving to Linux is slightly faster than Linux to FreeBSD, but FreeBSD to FreeBSD and Linux to Linux are easily twice as fast. I'd surmise that the same situation arises between Solaris and Linux.

I've heard this is caused by different tuning values in the NFS stack. I suppose you could try to change these values to match across your network, but it'd be far easier to standardize on one OS.

Why don't you use MULTIPLE Linux NFS servers? You might be able to use IDE disks that way, which would save you a bundle. Just an idea.

Does anyone know how SAN devices would work in this kind of setting? 200 Gb is just about the smallest SAN device you coulld get, but presumably it would be more optimized than a real computer. But I'm not sure.

Good luck!

Re:Go with the sun...

[Michael Neuffer]

The NFSv4 for SUN and Linux is done in parallel. SUN is sponsoring the Linux development. Hopefully there shouldn't be much of a time difference between the release of NFSv4 for Solaris and Linux.

Go with the sun...

[loony]

It saves you a lot of trouble... NFSv3 isn't all that great on the linux side and then the problems with the different FS (reiser can get corrupted with NFS...)
Also, NFS4 will be out (sometime soon I hope) and that will be easier to handle if you dont have to wait 2 years for a stable implementation on linux...

Reisefs + NFS

[mbyte]

They have still some troubles .. there's some patch on the reisefs homepage agains 2.4.2, that makes them work together nicely.

If you want a stable NFS box, don't go for linux 2.4.2. (see above ! I bet there are more problems like this)

don't get me wrong, 2.4.x NFS is quite nice, but its NEW, and UNTESTED ... so don't use it in your production enviroment !

Re:What about Solaris x86?

[Phoukka]

I've used Solaris 8 on x86. The general system performance is dreadful. Let this OS die a clean death.

We tested in our lab NFS performance of Solaris8 on x86, Solaris8 on SPARC, Linux 2.2 w/NFSv3 patches, Linux 2.4, and FreeBSD 4.x. Needless to say, when we compared apples to apples (discounting Solaris on SPARC), NFS performance ran, from slowest to fastest:

Solaris8 on x86, Linux 2.2, Linux 2.4, FreeBSD

We also tested disk IO and CPU/memory performance, and got the exact same line-up.

The tests were conducted on a PIII 650, 768MB RAM, 40GB ATA-66 HD, and Fast Ethernet.

For performance, we couldn't get better than FreeBSD. Of course, YMMV.

Re:AFS

[acoopersmith]

NFS can be configured to use various authentication methods on many OS'es, including DES & kerberos. Unfortunately, Linux NFS only supports the simple "trust the client host not to lie to you" default NFS authentication. This should change when NFSv4 [nfsv4.org] is adopted.

Both work - depends on you

[blakestah]

The rub here is that both work just fine. One is free. One costs money. One is developed to Suns specs, the other is Suns specs. Most experienced admins will say choose the Sun. I say, we use them both. They both work fine, even in a production environment. Backup often, and use the one you are more comfortable adminning.

Look seriously at a BSD

[gavcam]

You should seriously look at one of the BSDs. We ran a pure BSD based ISP. Many machines, many NFS mounts, no problems.

Highly recommended.

Option C:

[The Madpostal Worker]

FreeBSD!

I know you didnt suggest it, but its free, and has an excellent NFS subsystem.

/*
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/

Re:Reisefs + NFS

[Jon_E]

Solaris 8 has SDS (DiskSuite) improved and UFS logging natively .. throw in the native GNU utilities and an some big improvements in network caching - not bad for a free O/S ..

Re:Linux NFS and comparing Apples to Apples...

[Jon_E]

Good luck. Honestly, I'd investigate the *BSD solution for now, but I'd keep in mind that the upfront costs of the Sun system may actually be smaller than the long-term costs of the PCs.

Up front costs of a Sun? Take a look at some of the 1U netras - they're sub $1000 now? (your pricebook is a little old) .. Sun's slashing prices to help unload a lot of their old UltraSparc h/w, and with all the dot-com sellouts there's a ton more in auctions all over .. not bad for a 64-bit machine with a *really nice* o/s now (Sol 8 - more big improvements in 9). Sun h/w is at a really nice pricepoint now and with a well supported and bug-tested 64-bit O/S .. I'm not expecting IA64/linux to get there for at least another year or two - and by that point you should see a tighter merge on the two trees.

Just say no (more) to Intel h/w!!

Sun created NFS

[PatJensen]

Seeing as Sun Microsystems built NFS and commercially deployed it in SunOS and created and released the standards, I would not hesitate to pick Sun as my NFS vendor. Almost every OS product they've made since SunOS supports it. Solaris has a very strong and time-tested RPC implementation which lays the foundation for their NFS stack. It also cooperates with other vendors' NFS stacks well, provided they are not broken. I remember NeXTSTEP and Linux having issues using Solaris NFS servers back in the early days.

Also, seeing that Sun's hardware scales quite well for storage area networks makes their NFS solution a smart choice if you are looking to build a scalable Storage Area Network.

-Pat