similar to: Nfs vs Samba

I've been working with Samba in an AD domain setting for several years now. Small potatoes, nothing fancy. A few months ago, I came across the limitation of Samba, in comparison to file sharing from a Windows server, that, at the current moment, it doesn't offer an indexing service that is compatible with Windows Search. So, no matter how much I like Samba, if I need this feature, I have

Hi, I'm evaluating to switch from NetApp to a ZFS appliance (like Qsan). Our setup is Dovecot, Maildir for email storage and NFS to share mailboxes (more than 30k users) across POP/IMAP and MX servers. NetApp NFS works fine also under high load but have some limitation for inode numbers per Volume and is expensive (but recently their prices have dropped). ZFS, I read, suggest to create

Hey folks, A coworker wants to share drives between CentOS systems via SAMBA, which sort of seems pretty counter intuitive to me. But he says he's had troubles in the past with NFS. He was sort of short on details, but something about NFS not being reliable unless you enable NFS locking, but when you do that, you can end up in situations where if the server crashes it can cause the

Hi, first of all, please CC me on any reply, as I am only subscribed to the digest. OK. Here is the problem. Said kernel (from 4.4) seems to have problems with file-locking when the system is under high, likely network related, load. The symptoms are things using file locking (rpm, the user-space automounter amd) fail to obtain locks, usually stating timeout problems. The sytem in question is

Morning Folks, should I prefer NFS with UCARP or native GlusterFS mounts for serving the system images to XCP? Which one performes better over 1G network links? NFS is probaby easier to setup due to existing tools like rpcinfo and showmount, both are used inside the storage container code, and there is some code for NFS, not for GlusterFS, except I write one. UCARP has the disadvantage that

Hello, I have an interesting architecture consisting of a 3 RHEL 5.3 NFS nodes that mounts about 30 TB worth of iscsi disk and presents them as 6 different NFS shares. It is an active-active-active cluster with each node presenting a couple of shares. It works pretty well. I am doubting my decision to use NFS and am wondering if CIFS would be a better route. Here are the NFS stats: getattr

I've seen a number of posts discussing NFS based storage and issues with Dovecot. When the term "NFS" is used - does this exclusively refer to the Linux NFS network file system, or is it a generic reference to any network file system? I don't recall seeing any posts referencing issues with CIFS or SMBFS - is this because no one is using it, or because it just works instead

On May 3, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Glenn Cooper wrote: >>>> I never really paid attention to this but a file on an NFS mount is >>>> showing 64M in size, but when copying the file to a local drive, it >>>> shows 2.5MB in size. >>>> >>>> My NFS server is hardware Raided with a volume stripe size of 128K >>>> were the volume size is

Hello all, I have the following problem: I wish to access the NFS shares through Windows. I want guideline on the following issues : 1.One of the solution to above problem involves sharing the same share(directory) using Samba server and NFS server.But won't this give rise to conflicts with respect to access permission bits of that particular directory being shared. (Because Samba

Hello all, One of our clients reported that they are experiencing echo in SIP calls (even on internal ones). What do you think could be causing echo in internal SIP calls? We're using Polycom telephones, do you think they could be causing it? Thanks, Alex

Hi, I've seen some chatter on NFS boards about kqueue being more reliable than inotify when used in NFSv3 and NFSv2. The chatter is a bit old so I don't know if it is true anymore. Anyone have pro/con experience with dovecot on the inotify/kqueue question when using NFS storage? I realize that kqueue is probably a bit slower and causes some delay with IDLE. Also, it may not really

Hi, I'm sorry if this is a very FAQ, I've been googling around and searchin' the list archive and I'll gladly accept RTFMs with somehow precise URLs (including URLs to the list archives). I'm on the drawing board (no equipment yet) for a server farm that will have a SteelEye linux cluster behind to provide (among other services) with networked file access. The setup is

CentOS 5.7 x86_64. Lots of hosts NFS mounting a file system. All are configured identically (same LDAP servers, same DNS, same autofs config, same patches, etc). On some of them I see an NFS mount displaying a host name: % df -P | grep smt <hostname>:/mnt/foo 1651345888 264620688 1386725200 17% /fs/home/smt and on some just the IP address: % df -P | grep smt aa.bb.cc.dd:/mnt/foo

Has anyone here ran performance comparisons between NFS and iSCSI when using network storage for KVM based guests. Also which have people found to be easier for managing live migrates etc. Steve -- Steven Ellis - Bulletin.Net Inc - http://www.bulletin.net

Hello list, I built an email system using a proxy / director pair (IMAP, POP3, LMTP) and a backend pair. To have an HA system, I would like to understand if it is better to use an NFS export or replication to save emails and index files NFS is provided by a NAS (in HA), while for replication I would use the local backend disks Which of the two systems is more reliable? Are there any drawbacks

Hi, I would like to get some input from people who have used these options for mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to replicate / backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e. insecure channels) Currently we have been mounting an SMB share over SSH, but it's got it's own set of problems. And I don't know if this is optimal, or if I

Halo, Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer. I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure, with several hundred thousand user, we can ill afford to mess around or add to complexity, sometime keeping it simple is simply way to be, when use qmail/vpopmail, we never had one failure or problem, ever, we very proud of this record so our users.

Hi Louis, The idea I had with this thread is to just get an honest comparison between Windows and Samba when it comes to file sharing needs in the Windows world, the missing Windows Search capability was just an example to get the discussion going. If I understand your reference correctly, there is a solution, compatible with Apple's Spotlight, to index files on a Samba server using

Hello, We are having performance problems trying to migrate our pop/imap servers to a new version. Our old servers are 4 debian lenny with 5GB of RAM running of XenServer VMs with kernel 2.6.32-4-amd64 and dovecot 1.1.16. New servers are 4 ubuntu 12.04 with dovecot 2.1.5 running on vmware vm with 6 cores and 16GB of RAM and kernel 3.2.0-24-generic. On both server we are using nfs 3 with

I have been tweaking and researching for a while now and can't seem to get "good" performance out of Gluster. I'm using Gluster to replace an NFS server (c1.xlarge) that serves files to an array of web servers, all in EC2. In my tests Gluster is significantly slower than NFS on average. I'm using a distributed replicated volume on two (m1.large) bricks: Volume Name: ebs