Dan Melomedman wrote:
> Clint Bullock writes:
>
> > I've been using a NetApp F720 with linux and freebsd NFS clients for almost two
> > years, and I have had 0% NFS failure. I've been very happy mounting my maildirs
> > over NFS. Where are your failure statistics? Please provide us with a
> > cost/performance/stability evaluation of other solutions you have implemented,
> > as well.
>
> 0% NFS box failure doesn't mean 0% application failure which thinks NFS
> share is a regular FS.
>
excuse me, no application failures because of NFS that I know of using qmail-ldap,
sqwebmail, and courier-imap with NFS mounted maildirs... and no failures on the
NetApp server because of NFS
>
> You're all mentioning the same vendor, and how great their implementation
> is. Blah Blah. Just the fact that you had to spend $20,000 on A PC with RAID
> and proprietary OS says something about most NFS implementations, and the
> its design doesn't it?
>
Go get a clue as to what a NetApp is comprised of and capable of before commenting,
please. It's not only for NFS. Snapshots alone get me excited...
>
> Who told you that you have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a
> redundant SAN and software? In the case of GFS it doesn't cost anything, and
> even source is available. You only pay for hardware. It would probably cost
> you much less than your filer, and provide better performance since network
> is not involved, only SCSI fiber.
>
GFS is open source and free (as in speech and beer)? News to me...
Hope this thread dies, now...
--
Clint Bullock
Network Administrator
University of Georgia
Office of the Vice President for Research
