[CentOS] NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
rudiahlers at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 21:13:23 UTC 2010
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, nate <centos at linuxpowered.net> wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I would like to get some input from people who have used these options
> > 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.
> > channels)
> NFS and CIFS and iSCSI are all terrible for WAN backups(assuming
> you don't have a WAN optimization appliance), tons of overhead.
> Use rsync over SSH, or rsync over HPNSSH. I transfer over a TB of
> data a day using rsync over HPNSSH across several WANs.
We used to do it like that - rsync over SSH, but the amount of support calls
we got with this solution was just too much.
So, instead we mounted the backup volumes on the servers, and the end users
(most of them being developers & graphic designers) could have direct access
to their backups.
Currently we mount the SMB share over SSH, then rsync to it:
ssh -f -N -L 139:usabackup01:139 softdux at usabackup01
mount -t cifs //localhost/backups /bck/ -o username=xxxxxx,password=xxxxxxx
rsync -avz /home/pete/* /bck/home/pete/
^ this is just a quick sample. The different control panels use rsync
differently, and some users have their own rsync scripts as well.
But, I don't know if this is optimal. i.e. are other protocols which will
work better, and I could only think of iSCSI & NFS, but I don't know if
they're any better.
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS