Slashdot Mirror
Sun, or Linux 2.4.x As An NFS Server?
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?
For most installations, locking is not optional, ruling out the BSDs.
and no locking.
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.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Just for posterity, I'll respond: locking is a problem for the BSDs , not server-side.
--Matthew
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
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Here is a partial suggestion and question.
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
----------------- Who is Jesus?
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
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Use the same OS as your clients. In all the benchmarks I've seen, FreeBSD serving to Linux is slightly faster than Linux to FreeBSD, but FreeBSD to FreeBSD and Linux to Linux are easily twice as fast. I'd surmise that the same situation arises between Solaris and Linux.
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!
The NFSv4 for SUN and Linux is done in parallel. SUN is sponsoring the Linux development. Hopefully there shouldn't be much of a time difference between the release of NFSv4 for Solaris and Linux.
It saves you a lot of trouble... NFSv3 isn't all that great on the linux side and then the problems with the different FS (reiser can get corrupted with NFS...)
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...
They have still some troubles .. there's some patch on the reisefs homepage agains 2.4.2, that makes them work together nicely.
... so don't use it in your production enviroment !
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
NFS can be configured to use various authentication methods on many OS'es, including DES & kerberos. Unfortunately, Linux NFS only supports the simple "trust the client host not to lie to you" default NFS authentication. This should change when NFSv4 is adopted.
The rub here is that both work just fine. One is free. One costs money. One is developed to Suns specs, the other is Suns specs. Most experienced admins will say choose the Sun. I say, we use them both. They both work fine, even in a production environment. Backup often, and use the one you are more comfortable adminning.
Highly recommended.
FreeBSD!
/*
I know you didnt suggest it, but its free, and has an excellent NFS subsystem.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
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