Re: Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
Alexandre Oliva wrote: I'd much rather use NFS than SMB. It's generally far more efficient. However, God only knows how much crap an NFS server running on MS-Windows would have to work against, so it might be that it actually takes longer to run. I recommend running some I/O benchmarks eg. bonnie with a 100 MB or 256 MB file over NFS then over SMB. My experience has been that Sun PCNFS is incredibly slow, but some other NFS implementation on NT might be faster. -- "Jonathan F. Dill" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
This point is very important. You will have to do the equivalent of exporting to the server with "root" enabled. In Unix this usually is an option like "root=X" or on Linux "no_root_squash" otherwise you may not have sufficient priviledges to read the files. It may look like the backups worked, but when you restore the files, you may find that the files are the right size but only contain null characters (aka. ^@ or ASCII 0). It all depends how the MS NFS implementation handles UID mapping and what happens when you have insufficient priviledges to access some file. If you choose to use this NFS arrangement, you should make sure to export the disk read-only, otherwise someone could use NFS to trash your NT server(s). You should also try restoring a backup to a different location, eg. the holding disk, and make sure the file contents are OK and not bogus ^@ files. "John R. Jackson" wrote: ... I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not? I know very little about this, but the one thing that popped to mind is whether an MS NFS server would give a tar running as root on a client (to NFS) enough access to get to everything. The normal action is to convert all root requests to "nobody", which will not work well for backups. -- "Jonathan F. Dill" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
I have just a couple M$oft Win2K boxes that I would like my newly installed Amanda system to backup. I do have NFS servers running on them and presently mount the data directory's, via NFS, onto a Linux box. Keeping in mind that I have 50 GB of data (very little) , and have a 12 hour window for backups (yes, small network in an office) and I really am not worried about preserving ACL's - My question is: Which is easiest to maintain/setup - NFS mount the Win2k volumes onto the Linux box and use a gnu-tar-index backup, or install samba and use smbclient. I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not? Thanks for your input. Dave
Re: Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
On Apr 5, 2001, "Dave Hecht" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is easiest to maintain/setup - NFS mount the Win2k volumes onto the
Linux box and use a gnu-tar-index backup, or install samba and use
smbclient. I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not?
I'd much rather use NFS than SMB. It's generally far more efficient.
However, God only knows how much crap an NFS server running on
MS-Windows would have to work against, so it might be that it actually
takes longer to run.
I'd probably do some testing with both tar over NFS and smbtar before
making a decision, then post the results here for the benefit of
others in the same situation (hint, hint :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
... I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not? I know very little about this, but the one thing that popped to mind is whether an MS NFS server would give a tar running as root on a client (to NFS) enough access to get to everything. The normal action is to convert all root requests to "nobody", which will not work well for backups. Dave John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice: NFS vs SMB - looking for the voice of experience
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Hecht wrote: I have just a couple M$oft Win2K boxes that I would like my newly installed Amanda system to backup. I do have NFS servers running on them and presently mount the data directory's, via NFS, onto a Linux box. Keeping in mind that I have 50 GB of data (very little) , and have a 12 hour window for backups (yes, small network in an office) and I really am not worried about preserving ACL's - My question is: Which is easiest to maintain/setup - NFS mount the Win2k volumes onto the Linux box and use a gnu-tar-index backup, or install samba and use smbclient. I lean towards NFS, is there any reason I should not? I would prefer NFS mounted volumes for the following reasons: smbtar currently only supports doing incremental dumps via a single archive bit, i.e. you only get level 0 and level 1 dumps. If you have a dumpcycle of say two weeks the level 1 dump just before the a level 0 dump will collect all changes of the last two weeks, which can be quite a lot. However this depends on how often you data changes. With NFS there is no such issue. Hope this helps, Martin Martin Apel, Dipl.-Inform.t e c m a t h A G Group Manager Software Development Human Solutions Division phone +49 (0)6301 606-300Sauerwiesen 2, 67661 Kaiserslautern fax +49 (0)6301 606-309Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tecmath.com
