[CentOS] NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
rswwalker at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 00:17:11 UTC 2010
On Jan 28, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, nate <centos at linuxpowered.net> wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > nate, why not? Is it simply unavoidable at all costs to mount on
> system on
> > another, over a WAN? That's all I really want todo
> If what you have now works, stick with it.. in general network
> file systems are very latency sensitive.
> CIFS might work best *if* your using a WAN optimization appliance,
> I'm not sure how much support NFS gets from those vendors.
> iSCSI certainly is the worst, block devices are very intolerant of
> AFS may be another option though quite a bit more complicated, as
> far as I know it's a layer on top of an existing file system that
> is used for things like replication
> I have no experience with it myself.
> Thanx nate, this is what I wanted to hear :)
> 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
It's not easy backing up from behind the firewall.
What about using a service that will backup the mobile clients to an
offsite repository that is accessible also from behind the firewall.
I was pitched something not too long ago about such a service, can't
remember the name now unfortunately.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS