Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Dean Hamstead wrote:
ohh
just to be more brand neutral
www.emc.com
they are linux based. a good friend of mine works there. i believe
some companies rebadge them *shrug*
Not all - or even a majority - of EMC's kit is Linux based.
Particularly their SAN devices - they all run imbedded WindoZe XP {or NT
4.0 on older versions}.
Makes the older ones particularly unreliable in certain situations. :)
DaZZa
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
i could be wrong
but they are out there. so no one can say im a dell freak.
although i am, and in general linux people should be happy
that dell was one of the first to make an effort in the
linux direction!
Dean
DaZZa wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Dean Hamstead wrote:
ohh
just to be more brand neutral
www.emc.com
they are linux based. a good friend of mine works there. i believe
some companies rebadge them *shrug*
Not all - or even a majority - of EMC's kit is Linux based.
Particularly their SAN devices - they all run imbedded WindoZe XP {or NT
4.0 on older versions}.
Makes the older ones particularly unreliable in certain situations. :)
DaZZa
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
On 8/5/05, Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ohh just to be more brand neutral www.emc.com they are linux based. a good friend of mine works there. i believe some companies rebadge them *shrug* *cough* I work for them currently :) *winks* And unfortunately we still dont get employee discounts on the Dell NAS gear -yet-. Although it has been suggested, so who knows in due time we might. Although I dont think the wife would let me buy one... -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
ive had a lot of experience with dell NAS servers they run various version of windows 2000 and 2003 appliance edition they build on windows built in file sharing, netware, appletalk and services for unix. it will support print sharing also. on top of that they add a range of happy dell tools which i have actually found very intuative and often time saving. certainly they are better than any web based unix admin tools!!! NAS is a very interesting term. i think its a little bit of a retarded marking ploy. but anyway. i would have to say that they are a fairly good solution. Dean Rajnish wrote: All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
We installed a NAS a couple of years ago, and for the most part it has been relatively trouble-free. Some problems which came up: - Nonstandard Windows 2000 system surprised some of the Windows systems administrators as some tools were not present which they were used to. - Overly-trusting NFS system. If I was root on Unix box A, then I automatically became admin on the NAS. This was not particularly secure so we disabled it and went back to CIFS only. You might enquire about this because later versions of NAS may be a bit more secure now. I think the NASs that use Services for Unix may be OK as you just specify whether root on one is admin on the other (or not). - Check how expandable the disk array is, and subscribe to the manufacturer's end-of-life list. We got caught out with an expandable system but it would only work with the same brand arrays, and they were EOLd about a year after we bought it. - Users always fill up file systems unless they are micro-managed. We partitioned our NAS with the main array being one phy partition, multiple logical ones (Win shares). The net result was some users tended to hog the array and others complained about no space. The better option is to virtualise the space: ask your provider if they can do this. It might cost a bit extra though. - In a large org, users come and go. This means files and sometimes great gobs of stuff get orphaned, and Groups get unmanaged. You really need to have eye on this, maybe get some procedures written down that everyone follows. As for large files, they should be OK. They will just take a while to open. For large directories, I have seen one with over 16000 entries in it. It takes about 40 seconds to view the directory. Do take out a service contract on a NAS because a lot more people are relying on it being available compared with desktop computers, and if it breaks you need it up quickly. Make sure you can restore user's file when they accidentally delete them, so you will need some backup/restore system. Cheers, Jill. -Original Message- From: Rajnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 12:28 PM To: slug@slug.org.au Subject: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS) All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- Regards, Rajnish -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- IMPORTANT NOTICES This email (including any documents referred to in, or attached, to this email) may contain information that is personal, confidential or the subject of copyright or other proprietary rights in favour of Aristocrat, its affiliates or third parties. This email is intended only for the named addressee. Any privacy, confidence, copyright or other proprietary rights in favour of Aristocrat, its affiliates or third parties, is not lost because this email was sent to you by mistake. If you received this email by mistake you should: (i) not copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use it, or its contents, without the consent of Aristocrat or the owner of the relevant rights; (ii) let us know of the mistake by reply email or by telephone (+61 2 9413 6300); and (iii) delete it from your system and destroy all copies. Any personal information contained in this email must be handled in accordance with applicable privacy laws. Electronic and internet communications can be interfered with or affected by viruses and other defects. As a result, such communications may not be successfully received or, if received, may cause interference with the integrity of receiving, processing or related systems (including hardware, software and data or information on, or using, that hardware or software). Aristocrat gives no assurances in relation to these matters. If you have any doubts about the veracity or integrity of any electronic communication we appear to have sent you, please call +61
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
You might like to look at the features of a NetApp filer. Particulary the snapshots and dual partity raid features. I recently evaluated some NAS systems. An essential requirement was for users to be able to restore their own files from snapshots. I would not do file serving to the average user group without it. (of course tape backup is still essential.) BB on Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:27:41PM +1000, Rajnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- Regards, Rajnish -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Bevan Broun Systems Engineer THALES Services Division W: (02) 9562 2861 M: 0407 225 492 F: (02) 9562 2857 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
Jill has covered a lot of good points for NAS servers and file servers in general. But ill add a few points. Rowling, Jill wrote: We installed a NAS a couple of years ago, and for the most part it has been relatively trouble-free. Some problems which came up: - Nonstandard Windows 2000 system surprised some of the Windows systems administrators as some tools were not present which they were used to. they will strip 2000 and do funny things. now they are using 2003 appliance edition. i found that if i terminal serviced in (on headless) or logged in (on headed) i was just able to use the same normal methods of adding things - such as intel nic teaming... which i later found buried in the dell menus anyway. but ive been able to get WUS going and others with regedit etc. a mid range windows admin will find them disorienting if they are really customised. any high end admin should have no problems at all (i guess that toots my own horn. but im also the sort that really doesnt seem much difference between linux distributions) - Overly-trusting NFS system. If I was root on Unix box A, then I automatically became admin on the NAS. This was not particularly secure so we disabled it and went back to CIFS only. You might enquire about this because later versions of NAS may be a bit more secure now. I think the NASs that use Services for Unix may be OK as you just specify whether root on one is admin on the other (or not). thats something worth looking into. - Check how expandable the disk array is, and subscribe to the manufacturer's end-of-life list. We got caught out with an expandable system but it would only work with the same brand arrays, and they were EOLd about a year after we bought it. yes raid is like that. its a pain. be aware of the life cycle of the manufacturers products. having said that, the dell (badged adaptec and badged mylex?) was happy to rebuild mirrors onto larger replacements but you only got the first 18 gigs of space (in that case), you could partition and use the rest of the space though. - Users always fill up file systems unless they are micro-managed. We partitioned our NAS with the main array being one phy partition, multiple logical ones (Win shares). The net result was some users tended to hog the array and others complained about no space. The better option is to virtualise the space: ask your provider if they can do this. It might cost a bit extra though. windows quotas are quite nice. youll need to plan your partitioning around them as its on a per partition basis and it gets messy if you have group shares. but for simple home dirs it works great and comes with the OS (2000+) - In a large org, users come and go. This means files and sometimes great gobs of stuff get orphaned, and Groups get unmanaged. You really need to have eye on this, maybe get some procedures written down that everyone follows. As for large files, they should be OK. They will just take a while to open. For large directories, I have seen one with over 16000 entries in it. It takes about 40 seconds to view the directory. good points for fs in general Do take out a service contract on a NAS because a lot more people are relying on it being available compared with desktop computers, and if it breaks you need it up quickly. Make sure you can restore user's file when they accidentally delete them, so you will need some backup/restore system. i would run regular backups and yes, have a support contract. it will save you a lot of time and hassle. better their time than yours! you might consider something like 'yesterday' read only folders and then weekly backups. Dean Cheers, Jill. -Original Message- From: Rajnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 12:28 PM To: slug@slug.org.au Subject: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS) All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
ohh just to be more brand neutral www.emc.com they are linux based. a good friend of mine works there. i believe some companies rebadge them *shrug* Dean Dean Hamstead wrote: ive had a lot of experience with dell NAS servers they run various version of windows 2000 and 2003 appliance edition they build on windows built in file sharing, netware, appletalk and services for unix. it will support print sharing also. on top of that they add a range of happy dell tools which i have actually found very intuative and often time saving. certainly they are better than any web based unix admin tools!!! NAS is a very interesting term. i think its a little bit of a retarded marking ploy. but anyway. i would have to say that they are a fairly good solution. Dean Rajnish wrote: All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Network Attached Storage (NAS)
I've worked a lot with NetApp filers (mostly clusters) and they are really reliable, nice to administer and have a lot of features, like the mentioned snapshots, syncronisation, mirrors, double parity... they a not the cheapest ones, but they are worth it... if you know how many TB you need be sure the NetApp guy assures you that this amount will be available to use ;-))... they don't use the whole disk and there will be a reserve for the snapshot as well, which is configurable... check out their website... of course they support NFS and CIFS... if you license it... Juergen Broun, Bevan wrote: You might like to look at the features of a NetApp filer. Particulary the snapshots and dual partity raid features. I recently evaluated some NAS systems. An essential requirement was for users to be able to restore their own files from snapshots. I would not do file serving to the average user group without it. (of course tape backup is still essential.) BB on Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:27:41PM +1000, Rajnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I would like to get your esteemed opinion on a number of queries concerning NAS. But first a background - our LAN accomodates a number of diff OSes, including Solaris, Linux, Win2K and WinXP. We would like to attach NAS device(s) on the LAN, and be able to access storage space from all the above OSes. In particular, it is important that NAS devices support NFS - to enable Un*x boxes to mount the space. The space is to be used both as permanent storage as well as overflow workspaces for our developers. Questions: 1) Is NAS a suitable solution for such an environment ? If a case is to be made for/against it, what are the ups and downs ? 2) More importantly, what are your experiences with dealing with these devices ? Do they support NFS ? 3) Your experiences with speed and reliability ? We have particularly large files (200MB-2GB) to deal with and compiles includes a large number of files. Any tips, suggestions, references will be appreciated. Thanking you all in anticipation. Please reply to NG for future reference. -- Regards, Rajnish -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
