Sun, or Linux 2.4.x As An NFS Server? 19
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 (Score:1)
Re:Option C: (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Look seriously at a BSD (Score:2)
Just for posterity, I'll respond: locking is a problem for the BSDs , not server-side.
Linux NFS and comparing Apples to Apples... (Score:3)
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:
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? (Score:2)
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.... (Score:1)
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.... (Score:1)
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... (Score:2)
Go with the sun... (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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
Re:What about Solaris x86? (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
Both work - depends on you (Score:2)
Look seriously at a BSD (Score:3)
Highly recommended.
Option C: (Score:2)
I know you didnt suggest it, but its free, and has an excellent NFS subsystem.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
Re:Reisefs + NFS (Score:1)
Re:Linux NFS and comparing Apples to Apples... (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
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