Hi,
I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some input from other's who have done this before?
How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=...) or something similar to these?
I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in terms of the OS managing the device?
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:12:27 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some input from other's who have done this before?
How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=...) or something similar to these?
I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in terms of the OS managing the device?
I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an embedded Linux system.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com wrote:
I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an embedded Linux system.
-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
Yes, many NAS devices does run an embedded Linux, or UNIX OS but they normally also run on an ARM / MIPS / etc processor which I can't get my hand on. And they normally also have a team of developers / testers / etc who spend their whole lives perfecting this particular piece of equipment (either software, or hardware) I don't have that kind of resources to my disposal, which is why I want to go the Linux, or perhaps even UNIX route.
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:53:29 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com wrote:
I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an embedded Linux system.
-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
Yes, many NAS devices does run an embedded Linux, or UNIX OS but they normally also run on an ARM / MIPS / etc processor which I can't get my hand on. And they normally also have a team of developers / testers / etc who spend their whole lives perfecting this particular piece of equipment (either software, or hardware) I don't have that kind of resources to my disposal, which is why I want to go the Linux, or perhaps even UNIX route.
Even if thay are using ARM / MIPS processors, the code is pretty much the same code one would run on a i686 or x86_64 processor.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com wrote:
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:53:29 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com wrote:
I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an embedded Linux system.
Something else I just realized, dedicated NAS devices can rebuild the RAID system on the fly, and offer online RAID migration and expansion, load balance, and failover - how would one do these with Linux?
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Something else I just realized, dedicated NAS devices can rebuild the RAID system on the fly, and offer online RAID migration and expansion, load balance, and failover - how would one do these with Linux?
Look at the mdadm tools for raid. Rebuilding on the fly is no problem if your hardware supports hot-swap. Expanding is more complicated and if you mange it, you then have to separately grow the filesystem into the new space. LVM might be more useful for migration/expansion. If you need mirroring/failover between two systems, look at DRBD and heartbeat.
I believe openfiler uses the native linux tools with a management wrapper to integrate the steps - where nexentastor uses opensolaris/zfs where the concepts are integrated directly.
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some input from other's who have done this before?
How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=...) or something similar to these?
I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in terms of the OS managing the device?
These aren't centos based - or even all linux, but the software-NAS players are: http://www.openfiler.com/ http://www.freenas.org/ http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsectio...
Or you can just use a generic disto with separate configuration commands for each protocol.
These aren't centos based - or even all linux, but the software-NAS players are: http://www.openfiler.com/ http://www.freenas.org/ http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsectio...
Or you can just use a generic disto with separate configuration commands for each protocol.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I have, and still do use FreeNAS on my own home-server and I have to say that it works well. But, then again when something goes wrong I reinstall, and restore the backups.
The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power supplies & hard drives.
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For example I could setup storage space for users and build custom applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if the server has enough RAM & CPU.
Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern.
I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing with the other one.
The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best?
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
You say that downtime is not an option, so I can say with absolute confidence there really is nothing you can build for the budget your looking for that will provide 100% uptime.
Either set expectations for the budget you have or get a bigger budget to satisfy the requirements.
There are really only a few storage systems in the world that will put money down on 100% SLA uptime and they are all multi million dollar systems, and even then they will just pay you for any downtime caused by the storage, that doesn't mean there won't ever be downtime. And one vendor at least - Hitachi claims they have yet to have had to pay out on that guarantee(at least as of late last year when I last talked to them).
Depending on space and performance requirements you can get a system that's built for 99.999% uptime for about $90-120k in the U.S.
Even my own new storage system which as configured lists for about $990k does not guarantee 100% uptime, their goal is 99.999%, so far we've had 100% uptime over the past year, we've had two soft failures on the system, one was a Fiber channel HBA firmware crashed and dumped, the system automatically restarted the HBA chip, the second was a system level software component segfaulted(the system runs on Debian), the system auto restarted it, no noticeable impacts in either case as everything is connected to at least two active-active controllers..
Providing high availability storage is not a simple task, take for example a simple thing such as drive firmware upgrades, our storage system had to undergo drive firmware upgrades this past weekend due to a bug in the Seagate SATA drives which under very rare conditions could cause data corruption. The array handled the firmware upgrades itself, upgrading one drive at a time, took about 16 hours for 200 disks, zero impact to the system.
If your building a system yourself in my experience its highly unlikely that you are ever alerted to such a problem in the drive firmware yet alone have to go through the process of upgrading the drives. Fortunately critical drive firmware updates are somewhat rare, but I think they will become more common as more systems move to SATA, which for the most part is lower quality/less testing.
One guy I met with a couple of years ago had an entirely SATA drive system from another vendor using Western Digital drives, and there was a NASTY firmware bug in that system as well, and it continually impacted production, the drives at random times would just flat out stall, and you had to physically remove them from the array and re-insert them to cycle them and get them up again. And the array vendor had no way of flashing drives automatically at the time, he was faced with flashing each and every drive individually in another system(s). Eventually the vendor fixed their software to allow automatic firmware updates but that's just another example of the complexities involved with high availability storage and that's just at the block storage level.
On some of our Dell servers we had to manually boot with a floppy to DOS to flash some Seagate SCSI drive firmwares as the firmware they shipped with killed performance(500% faster with newer firmware for our app).
Then you need to take into account things like MPIO and active-active or active-passive storage controllers. Then if you get into the file based storage then there is another layer of availability bolted on top of that as well which can further complicate things.
Our last NAS vendor is well known in the ultra high performance arena, but even with an active-active NAS cluster they could not do a major software upgrade without hard cluster downtime. And fail over took upwards of 60 seconds.
Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern.
You say IO is the biggest concern yet below you plan to use SATA disks?! Doesn't make sense. Unless you plan to have a large amount of SATA disks. SATA has 1/2 the I/O capacity of 10k RPM, and 1/3rd the I/O capacity of 15k RPM.
The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best?
You sound like you want something that is fast, very highly available, cheap, has lots of space, and easy to manage, such a system doesn't really exist(depending on your view of how cheap is cheap). The reason it doesn't exist is because it's really complicated to get right.
Your setting yourself up for major disappointment or a massive headache down the road. Pick a subset of your requirements, find a solution that fits it and set expectations/SLAs to match that solution whatever it may be.
If I were in your position I would opt for something that is as simple to manage as possible, and limit the services you provide through it, get decent hardware and setup some sort of replication to a 2nd identical system(myself would avoid things like DRBD)
At the very least opt for a good SCSI raid controller and a shelf of external disks, don't use the internal drive bays on a system. On the low end HP is a good fit, Infortrend has some pretty good stuff, LSI as well.
If you want to go a bit higher end, get a fiber channel storage system(same vendors) with redundant controllers and connect to it via FC.
Make sure the drive models and firmware is certified with the controller/storage system your getting.
nate
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power supplies & hard drives.
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon.
The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For example I could setup storage space for users and build custom applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if the server has enough RAM & CPU.
Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern.
I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing with the other one.
The 2 device failover is the tricky part and it introduces some new ways to fail. I've always preferred to keep things simple with mirrored disks in a hot-swap chassis so the likely failure (single disk) doesn't slow down operation and can be replaced at a convenient time. The less likely motherboard or power supply failure will cause some down time while you swap the disks into a spare chassis, though. And you still need off-site backups to cover other types of problems.
The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best?
I'd try the canned openfiler/nexentastore installs to see if they meet your needs in terms of functionality and performance and if so, then decide whether you want to use a supported version or duplicate their work setting up something on generic linux/opensolaris.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power supplies & hard drives.
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon.
But surely CentOS, or other free / non-enterprise linux's can do the same? I've seen NAS devices running Debian, so CentOS should be able to deliver the same performance / reliability ?
The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For example I could setup storage space for users and build custom applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if the server has enough RAM & CPU.
Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern.
I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing with the other one.
The 2 device failover is the tricky part and it introduces some new ways to fail. I've always preferred to keep things simple with mirrored disks in a hot-swap chassis so the likely failure (single disk) doesn't slow down operation and can be replaced at a convenient time. The less likely motherboard or power supply failure will cause some down time while you swap the disks into a spare chassis, though. And you still need off-site backups to cover other types of problems.
The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best?
I'd try the canned openfiler/nexentastore installs to see if they meet your needs in terms of functionality and performance and if so, then decide whether you want to use a supported version or duplicate their work setting up something on generic linux/opensolaris.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon.
But surely CentOS, or other free / non-enterprise linux's can do the same? I've seen NAS devices running Debian, so CentOS should be able to deliver the same performance / reliability ?
Sure, CentOS is as good as it gets. I was just using my oldest still-running system as an example - and it is well firewalled so I haven't been forced to upgrade it for security reasons. You just need to stick to distributions that emphasize stability and in most situations you'll want some scheduled downtime to do updates that might require reboots. But even dedicated hardware will sometimes have required updates.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon.
But surely CentOS, or other free / non-enterprise linux's can do the same? I've seen NAS devices running Debian, so CentOS should be able to deliver the same performance / reliability ?
Sure, CentOS is as good as it gets. I was just using my oldest still-running system as an example - and it is well firewalled so I haven't been forced to upgrade it for security reasons. You just need to stick to distributions that emphasize stability and in most situations you'll want some scheduled downtime to do updates that might require reboots. But even dedicated hardware will sometimes have required updates.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Thanx for all the input, it has helped me a lot. Now I just need to convince my partner to use a Linux based NAS :)
Openfiler has also been doing quite well for me, as well as FreeNAS, so it's a tough choice - both of these run out of the box what I need, but with my own NAS device, I could run a few other things (Apache + PHP + MySQL) as well.
oops, pushed replied too soon :)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power supplies & hard drives.
But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime.
High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon.
The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For example I could setup storage space for users and build custom applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if the server has enough RAM & CPU.
Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern.
I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing with the other one.
The 2 device failover is the tricky part and it introduces some new ways to fail. I've always preferred to keep things simple with mirrored disks in a hot-swap chassis so the likely failure (single disk) doesn't slow down operation and can be replaced at a convenient time. The less likely motherboard or power supply failure will cause some down time while you swap the disks into a spare chassis, though. And you still need off-site backups to cover other types of problems.
For this reason I would be using server grade motherboards, chassis, drives, etc. All the drive would be hot swappable, and the PSU would be hot swappable & redundant as well. The only parts that doesn't have redundancy is the motherboard, CPU, RAM & disk controller.
But, for redundancy I'm thinking of putting together 2 identical servers which could be setup in active-active sync.
Openfiler offers this out of the box, but it's still a Linux distro, so I'm looking at giving this a go and see what how it performs.
The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best?
I'd try the canned openfiler/nexentastore installs to see if they meet your needs in terms of functionality and performance and if so, then decide whether you want to use a supported version or duplicate their work setting up something on generic linux/opensolaris.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some input from other's who have done this before?
I've bought two SAN devices in the past couple years, both run Debian and both are tier 1 enterprise storage arrays. Of course you wouldn't know they ran Debian or linux unless you tried to telnet to them on port 22 and saw the SSH banner. http://www.3par.com/inservtclass/
My active-active NAS head units runs CentOS 4.4 on IBM hardware (back end disk storage provided by above array) http://www.exanet.com/default.asp?contentID=209
How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=...) or something similar to these?
I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in terms of the OS managing the device?
If you use a purpose-built appliance OS it should be pretty comparable, e.g. openfiler or freenas(bsd based?) to something like a Thecus. I used openfiler about 1.5 years ago mostly for iSCSI and it worked ok, at one point had 4 shelves of HP MSA SCSI disk drives attached to it each connected to dedicated RAID cards on an older HP DL585.
I'm looking to get a Thecus N770 myself pretty soon, mainly for the smaller integrated form factor with many drive bays.
nate
on 8-27-2009 3:12 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following:
Hi,
I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some input from other's who have done this before?
How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=...) or something similar to these?
I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in terms of the OS managing the device?
Have you looked at the openfiler project? Runs on linux, and has fancy web management.
-
Les Mikesell -
nate -
Robert Heller -
Rudi Ahlers -
Rudi Ahlers -
Scott Silva