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-0005.html>