[CentOS] NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts

[Ross Walker]

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
> latency.
>
> 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
>
> http://www.openafs.org/
>
> 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.

-Ross

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100128/3770e27b/attachment.html>