<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">On Jan 28, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Rudi Ahlers <<a href="mailto:rudiahlers@gmail.com">rudiahlers@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, nate <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:centos@linuxpowered.net"><a href="mailto:centos@linuxpowered.net">centos@linuxpowered.net</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Rudi Ahlers wrote:<br>
<br>
> nate, why not? Is it simply unavoidable at all costs to mount on system on<br>
> another, over a WAN? That's all I really want todo<br>
<br>
</div>If what you have now works, stick with it.. in general network<br>
file systems are very latency sensitive.<br>
<br>
CIFS might work best *if* your using a WAN optimization appliance,<br>
I'm not sure how much support NFS gets from those vendors.<br>
<br>
iSCSI certainly is the worst, block devices are very intolerant of<br>
latency.<br>
<br>
AFS may be another option though quite a bit more complicated, as<br>
far as I know it's a layer on top of an existing file system that<br>
is used for things like replication<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.openafs.org/" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.openafs.org/">http://www.openafs.org/</a></a><br>
<br>
I have no experience with it myself.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 35, 163);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 80, 1);"><br></span></span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Thanx nate, this is what I wanted to hear :)<br></div><div><br></div><div>So, is there any benefit in using NFS over SMB in this case? The CIFS mounts can't be unmounted without a reboot, so they build-up a pool of mounts to the same server which cause extra latency</div></div></blockquote><br><div>It's not easy backing up from behind the firewall.</div><div><br></div><div>What about using a service that will backup the mobile clients to an offsite repository that is accessible also from behind the firewall.</div><div><br></div><div>I was pitched something not too long ago about such a service, can't remember the name now unfortunately.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise you could look into some sort of WebDAV + Fuse setup or some specialized file system that is cached on the client but then syncs with the server in the background when available, then all your backups are local.</div><div><br></div><div>-Ross</div><div><br></div></body></html>