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

--00032555b4ce8d2c72047e37d1c0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,
I would like to get some input from people who have used these options for
mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to replicate /
backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e. insecure
channels)
Currently we have been mounting an SMB share over SSH, but it's got it's own
set of problems. And I don't know if this is optimal, or if I could setup
something better. We don't have much control over the remote server, so I
couldn't setup a VPN, or iSCSI or anything else. My options was FTP & SMB.
But I want to move the backups in-house, to save bandwidth and have more
control over what we do.
So, with a new CentOS server & 2x1TB HDD's in RAID1 configuration, I can do
pretty much whatever I want. The backup server(s) will serve backups for
multiple servers, in different data centers (possible in different counties
as well, I still need to think about this), so my biggest concern is
security.
We mainly use cPanel & DotNetPanel (Windows ServerS) , but also WebMin &
VirtualMin, so I need to stick with their native backup procedures and don't
really want to use a too technical backup system.
The end users need access to the data 24/7, so having the remote share
permanently mounted seems to be the best for this, then our support staff
don't need to SSH into the servers and download the backups. With the mount,
I can also use rsync backups, so an end user could restore only a single
file if need be.
NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can only
think of SMB, NFS & iSCSI
The SMB mounts have worked well so far, but it's not as safe, and once the
SMB share is mounted, I can't unmount it until the server reboots. This
isn't necessarily a bad thing, but sometime the backup script will mount the
share again (I think this is a bug in cPanel) and we end up with 4 or 5 open
connection to the remote server.
NFS - last time I looked at it was on V3, which was IMO rather slow &
insecure.
iSCSI - this doesn't allow for more than one connect to the same share.
Sometimes I user might want to download a backup directly from the backup
server via FTP / SSH / a web interface, which I don't think will work. We
also sometimes need to restore a backup on a different server (if for
example the HDD on the initial server is too full), so this isn't possible.
The remote shares also need to be mounted inside XEN domU's, or directly on
CentOS / Windows servers.
what would be my best option for this?
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555b4ce8d2c72047e37d1c0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,=A0I would like to get =
some input from people who have used these options for mounting a remote se=
rver to a local server. Basically, I need to replicate / backup data from o=
ne server to another, but over the internet (i.e. insecure channels)=A0
Currently we have been mounting an SMB share over SSH, =
but it's got it's own set of problems. And I don't know if this=
is optimal, or if I could setup something better. We don't have much c=
ontrol over the remote server, so I couldn't setup a VPN, or iSCSI or a=
nything else. My options was FTP & SMB.=A0
But I want to move the backups in-house, to save bandwi=
dth and have more control over what we do.=A0So, =
with a new CentOS server & 2x1TB HDD's in RAID1 configuration, I ca=
n do pretty much whatever I want. The backup server(s) will serve backups f=
or multiple servers, in different data centers (possible in different count=
ies as well, I still need to think about this), so my biggest concern is se=
curity.=A0
We mainly use cPanel & DotNetPanel (Windows ServerS=
) , but also WebMin & VirtualMin, so I need to stick with their native =
backup procedures and don't really want to use a too technical backup s=
ystem.=A0
The end users need access to the data 24/7, so having t=
he remote share permanently mounted seems to be the best for this, then our=
support staff don't need to SSH into the servers and download the back=
ups. With the mount, I can also use rsync backups, so an end user could res=
tore only a single file if need be.=A0
NOW, the question is: Whi=
ch protocol would be best for this? I can only think of SMB, NFS & iSCS=
IThe SMB mounts have worked well so far, but it's not as=
safe, and once the SMB share is mounted, I can't unmount it until the =
server reboots. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but sometime the ba=
ckup script will mount the share again (I think this is a bug in cPanel) an=
d we end up with 4 or 5 open connection to the remote server.=A0
NFS - last time I looked at it was on V3, which was IMO=
rather slow & insecure.=A0iSCSI - this doesn=
't allow for more than one connect to the same share. Sometimes I user =
might want to download a backup directly from the backup server via FTP / S=
SH / a web interface, which I don't think will work. We also sometimes =
need to restore a backup on a different server (if for example the HDD on t=
he initial server is too full), so this isn't possible.=A0
The remote shares also need to be mounted inside XEN do=
mU's, or directly on CentOS / Windows servers.=A0what would be my best option for this?

-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDux=
Website: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.Soft=
Dux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555b4ce8d2c72047e37d1c0--

Greetings,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can only
> think of SMB, NFS & iSCSI
Just an innocent and possibly OOB suggestion -- what you think of sshfs
Regards
Rajagopal
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--000325557a7eb513c5047e3875a9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan <
raju.rajsand@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can only
> > think of SMB, NFS & iSCSI
>
>
> Just an innocent and possibly OOB suggestion -- what you think of sshfs
>
> Regards
>
> Rajagopal
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
heh, I knew I should have mentioned it, but due to the extra kernel modules
that it needs, it's a bit impractical for our XEN domU's.
BUT, I also don't know what kind of performance gain it would give me, if
any. Any experience with it?
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325557a7eb513c5047e3875a9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Rajagop=
al Swaminathan <raju.rajsand@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings,

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@softdux.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can onl=
y
> think of SMB, NFS & iSCSI


Just an innocent and possibly OOB suggestion =A0-- what you think of =
sshfs

Regards

Rajagopal
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
heh, I knew I should have mentioned it, but due=
to the extra kernel modules that it needs, it's a bit impractical for =
our XEN domU's.=A0BUT, I al=
so don't know what kind of performance gain it would give me, if any. A=
ny experience with it?
-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.comOffice: 0=
87 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325557a7eb513c5047e3875a9--

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get some input from people who have used these options
> for mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to
> replicate / backup data from one server to another, but over the
> internet (i.e. insecure channels)
>
> Currently we have been mounting an SMB share over SSH, but it's got it's
> own set of problems. And I don't know if this is optimal, or if I could
> setup something better. We don't have much control over the remote
> server, so I couldn't setup a VPN, or iSCSI or anything else. My options
> was FTP & SMB.
>
> But I want to move the backups in-house, to save bandwidth and have more
> control over what we do.
>
> So, with a new CentOS server & 2x1TB HDD's in RAID1 configuration, I can
> do pretty much whatever I want. The backup server(s) will serve backups
> for multiple servers, in different data centers (possible in different
> counties as well, I still need to think about this), so my biggest
> concern is security.
>
> We mainly use cPanel & DotNetPanel (Windows ServerS) , but also WebMin &
> VirtualMin, so I need to stick with their native backup procedures and
> don't really want to use a too technical backup system.
>
> The end users need access to the data 24/7, so having the remote share
> permanently mounted seems to be the best for this, then our support
> staff don't need to SSH into the servers and download the backups. With
> the mount, I can also use rsync backups, so an end user could restore
> only a single file if need be.
>
>
>
> NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can only
> think of SMB, NFS & iSCSI
> The SMB mounts have worked well so far, but it's not as safe, and once
> the SMB share is mounted, I can't unmount it until the server reboots.
> This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but sometime the backup script will
> mount the share again (I think this is a bug in cPanel) and we end up
> with 4 or 5 open connection to the remote server.
>
> NFS - last time I looked at it was on V3, which was IMO rather slow &
> insecure.
>
> iSCSI - this doesn't allow for more than one connect to the same share.
> Sometimes I user might want to download a backup directly from the
> backup server via FTP / SSH / a web interface, which I don't think will
> work. We also sometimes need to restore a backup on a different server
> (if for example the HDD on the initial server is too full), so this
> isn't possible.
>
> The remote shares also need to be mounted inside XEN domU's, or directly
> on CentOS / Windows servers.
>
>
> what would be my best option for this?
Anytime someone mentions backups, I have a knee-jerk reaction to mention
backuppc because it is simple and will likely do anything you need. Docs are
here: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ It is packaged in epel. It can use rsync
(with/without ssh), smb, or tar for the backup transport. Generally for
anything remote, you'll want rsync, and you'll want it badly enough to set it up
even on windows targets - which is not all that difficult.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get some input from people who have used these options for
> mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to replicate /
> backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e. insecure
> channels)
NFS and CIFS and iSCSI are all terrible for WAN backups(assuming
you don't have a WAN optimization appliance), tons of overhead.
Use rsync over SSH, or rsync over HPNSSH. I transfer over a TB of
data a day using rsync over HPNSSH across several WANs.
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--000325554232641b69047e3fd42c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Anytime someone mentions backups, I have a knee-jerk reaction to mention
> backuppc because it is simple and will likely do anything you need. Docs
> are
> here: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ It is packaged in epel. It can use
> rsync
> (with/without ssh), smb, or tar for the backup transport. Generally for
> anything remote, you'll want rsync, and you'll want it badly enough to set
> it up
> even on windows targets - which is not all that difficult.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
>
Thank you Les, but I'm not looking for a new backup program. We rely on the
platform's native backup scripts. I'm looking for recommendation for a fast,
reliable & secure remote backup server platform
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325554232641b69047e3fd42c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Anytime someone mentions backups, I have a =
knee-jerk reaction to mention
backuppc because it is simple and will likely do anything you need. =A0Docs=
are
here: http:/=
/backuppc.sourceforge.net/ It is packaged in epel. =A0It can use rsync
=A0(with/without ssh), smb, or tar for the backup transport. =A0Generally =
for
anything remote, you'll want rsync, and you'll want it badly enough=
to set it up
even on windows targets - which is not all that difficult.

--
=A0 Les Mikesell
=A0 =A0lesmikesell@gmail.com
=
Thank you Les, but I'm not looking for a new backup program. We rely on=
the platform's native backup scripts. I'm looking for recommendati=
on for a fast, reliable & secure remote backup server platform =A0
-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftD=
uxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.co=
mTechnical Blog: http://Blog.So=
ftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325554232641b69047e3fd42c--

--000325559b1e6aeef8047e3ffea8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, nate wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to get some input from people who have used these options
> for
> > mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to
> replicate /
> > backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e.
> insecure
> > channels)
>
> NFS and CIFS and iSCSI are all terrible for WAN backups(assuming
> you don't have a WAN optimization appliance), tons of overhead.
> Use rsync over SSH, or rsync over HPNSSH. I transfer over a TB of
> data a day using rsync over HPNSSH across several WANs.
>
> nate
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
Hi Nate,
We used to do it like that - rsync over SSH, but the amount of support calls
we got with this solution was just too much.
So, instead we mounted the backup volumes on the servers, and the end users
(most of them being developers & graphic designers) could have direct access
to their backups.
Currently we mount the SMB share over SSH, then rsync to it:
ssh -f -N -L 139:usabackup01:139 softdux@usabackup01
mount -t cifs //localhost/backups /bck/ -o username=xxxxxx,password=xxxxxxx
rsync -avz /home/pete/* /bck/home/pete/
^ this is just a quick sample. The different control panels use rsync
differently, and some users have their own rsync scripts as well.
But, I don't know if this is optimal. i.e. are other protocols which will
work better, and I could only think of iSCSI & NFS, but I don't know if
they're any better.

--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559b1e6aeef8047e3ffea8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, nate <centos@linux=
powered.net> wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get some input from people who have used these options=
for
> mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to repli=
cate /
> backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e. in=
secure
> channels)

NFS and CIFS and iSCSI are all terrible for WAN backups(assuming
you don't have a WAN optimization appliance), tons of overhead.
Use rsync over SSH, or rsync over HPNSSH. I transfer over a TB of
data a day using rsync over HPNSSH across several WANs.

nate

_______________________________________________
Hi Nate, We used to do it like that - rsync over SSH, but the amount of sup=
port calls we got with this solution was just too much.
So, instead we mounted the backup volumes on the servers, and th=
e end users (most of them being developers & graphic designers) could h=
ave direct access to their backups.=A0Currently w=
e mount the SMB share over SSH, then rsync to it:
ssh -f -N -L 139:usabackup01:139 softdux@usabackup01mount -t cifs //localhost/backups /bck/ -o username=3Dxxxxxx,password=3Dxx=
xxxxxrsync -avz /home/pete/* /bck/home/pete/

^ this is just a quick sample. The different control panels use rsync =
differently, and some users have their own rsync scripts as well.=A0But, I don't know if this is optimal. i.e. are other=
protocols which will work better, and I could only think of iSCSI & NF=
S, but I don't know if they're any better.=A0
-- Kind Regar=
dsRudi AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559b1e6aeef8047e3ffea8--

On 1/28/2010 3:01 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Anytime someone mentions backups, I have a knee-jerk reaction to mention
> backuppc because it is simple and will likely do anything you need.
> Docs are
> here: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ It is packaged in epel. It
> can use rsync
> (with/without ssh), smb, or tar for the backup transport.
> Generally for
> anything remote, you'll want rsync, and you'll want it badly enough
> to set it up
> even on windows targets - which is not all that difficult.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
>
>
> Thank you Les, but I'm not looking for a new backup program. We rely on
> the platform's native backup scripts. I'm looking for recommendation for
> a fast, reliable & secure remote backup server platform
I don't understand what a 'remote backup server platform' is if it
doesn't involve backup software. If you just want to present a file or
device interface you can do that over a WAN with ordinary protocols but
you won't like it. You could split the difference with a local (to the
targets) file share where the native backups dump a copy, followed by
remote rsync'ing of that copy to a central server where a longer history
might be managed (or letting backuppc do that part for you).
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 1/28/2010 3:13 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> We used to do it like that - rsync over SSH, but the amount of support
> calls we got with this solution was just too much.
>
> So, instead we mounted the backup volumes on the servers, and the end
> users (most of them being developers & graphic designers) could have
> direct access to their backups.
This is probably getting repetitive, but backuppc provides a web
interface where server 'owners' can browse their own backups, select
what they want, and click a button to restore or download to their
desktop. It's not part of the distribution, but I think someone even
has a fuse filesystem layer that gives normal-looking read access to the
compressed/pooled storage. I don't know if you can wrap samba on top of
that, though - or what kind of performance it has.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--00032555a39a8a0dc2047e4110af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>
> This is probably getting repetitive, but backuppc provides a web
> interface where server 'owners' can browse their own backups, select
> what they want, and click a button to restore or download to their
> desktop. It's not part of the distribution, but I think someone even
> has a fuse filesystem layer that gives normal-looking read access to the
> compressed/pooled storage. I don't know if you can wrap samba on top of
> that, though - or what kind of performance it has.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
>
You're right, it is getting repetitive, but thank you for the advice, I'll
look into backuppc
ok, forget about rsync. forget about which backup script is better, and
which isn't. forget about how I get the data onto the order server. I don't
care about backups, or rsync, or backuppc or bacula or amanda, or R1soft
let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this type
of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555a39a8a0dc2047e4110af
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Les Mi=
kesell <lesmi=
kesell@gmail.com> wrote:


This is probably getting repetitive, but backuppc provides a web
interface where server 'owners' can browse their own backups, selec=
t
what they want, and click a button to restore or download to their
desktop. =A0It's not part of the distribution, but I think someone even=

has a fuse filesystem layer that gives normal-looking read access to the
compressed/pooled storage. =A0I don't know if you can wrap samba on top=
of
that, though - or what kind of performance it has.

--
=A0 Les Mikesell
=A0 =A0lesmikesell@gmail.com
______________________________________________=
_
You'r=
e right, it is getting repetitive, but thank you for the advice, I'll l=
ook into backuppcok, forget abo=
ut rsync. forget about which backup script is better, and which isn't. =
forget about how I get the data onto the order server. I don't care abo=
ut backups, or rsync, or backuppc or bacula or amanda, or R1soft=A0
let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem wo=
uld be best for this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com=
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555a39a8a0dc2047e4110af--

On 1/28/2010 4:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> ok, forget about rsync. forget about which backup script is better, and
> which isn't. forget about how I get the data onto the order server. I
> don't care about backups, or rsync, or backuppc or bacula or amanda, or
> R1soft
>
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this
> type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
All are fine locally, horrible over network connections with high
latency or limited bandwidth. iSCSI is probably harder to manage if you
ever want to see the data from more than one connection.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for
> this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
ISCSI is not a file system, its purely a block device. works best over
fast low latency dedicated links.
I think NFS would be better for unix to unix than SMB. SMB/CIFS is
better for MS Windows, but neither works very well over high latency
connections.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this type
> of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
none
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this type
> of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
none
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--00032555a33aa2496a047e41abc8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM, nate wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> > let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this
> type
> > of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
>
> none
>
> nate
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
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
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555a33aa2496a047e41abc8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM, nate <centos@linux=
powered.net> wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:

> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for=
this type
> of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?

none

nate

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
nate, why not? Is=
it simply unavoidable at all costs to mount on system on another, over a W=
AN? That's all I really want todo=A0
-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.comOffice: 0=
87 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--00032555a33aa2496a047e41abc8--

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.
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--000325559bbae9f389047e41ce57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, nate 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.
>
> nate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
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
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bbae9f389047e41ce57
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, nate <centos@linux=
powered.net> wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:

> nate, why not? Is it simply unavoidable at all costs to mount on syste=
m 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.or=
g/

I have no experience with it myself.

nate


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanx nat=
e, this is what I wanted to hear :)So, is the=
re 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 s=
ame server which cause extra latency
-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDux=
Website: http://www.SoftDux.comT=
echnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bbae9f389047e41ce57--

On 1/28/2010 5:13 PM, 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
You are introducing unpredictable delays and possible
retries/disconnects into kernel layers that aren't very well prepared to
deal with them. It may mostly work, but I assume you wouldn't be asking
if you were happy with it. There might be something you could do with
mirroring over DRDB if you are willing to duplicate the disk space on
both sides - but you could use rsync for that too.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 1/28/2010 5:23 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> 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
I don't understand either of not being able to unmount a cifs mount or
not being able to avoid remounting when it is already mounted. That's
probably something you can fix. The only thing that should keep you
from unmounting would be if some file is open or a running process has
its working directory under the mount point.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--Apple-Mail-141-801706684
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Jan 28, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM, nate 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
--Apple-Mail-141-801706684
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jan =
28, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@gmail.com> =
wrote:On Fri, Jan 29, =
2010 at 1:18 AM, nate <centos@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 latencyIt'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=
--Apple-Mail-141-801706684--

--000325559bbad02d34047e48b4bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
Hi Ross,
Backing up behind the firewall is made easy by using an SSH tunnel :)
We already have an offsite backup facility with a 3rd party, but I need more
control over the backups, and want to setup an inhouse backup server which
where all the client's account (this is hosting accounts & VPS's) be backed
up to, then this server will do an rsync with all the data to the offsite
backup server.

--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bbad02d34047e48b4bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Ross Wa=
lker <rswwalker=
@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not easy backing up from behind the =
firewall.What about using a service that will bac=
kup the mobile clients to an offsite repository that is accessible also fro=
m behind the firewall.
I was pitched something not too long ago about such a s=
ervice, 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 t=
he server in the background when available, then all your backups are local=
.
-Ross_______________________________________________Hi Ross,=A0Backing up be=
hind the firewall is made easy by using an SSH tunnel :)
We already have an=A0offsite=A0backup facility with a 3=
rd party, but I need more control over the backups, and want to setup an in=
house backup server which where all the client's account (this is hosti=
ng accounts & VPS's) be backed up to, then this server will do an r=
sync with all the data to the offsite backup server.=A0
=A0-- Kind Re=
gardsRudi AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bbad02d34047e48b4bc--

--00504502b9608427b8047e48dff1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this
> type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
>
As someone said, these are all bad if your channel is insecure.
Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.
Dave
--00504502b9608427b8047e48dff1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem wo=
uld be best for this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?As someone said, these are all bad i=
f your channel is insecure. =A0
Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust=
.=A0Dave

--00504502b9608427b8047e48dff1--

On Friday, January 29, 2010 03:49 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers > wrote:
>
>
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for
> this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
>
>
>
> As someone said, these are all bad if your channel is insecure.
>
> Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.
>
I foresee loads of kernel timeout messages in /var/log/messages...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Dave wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers > wrote:
>
>
> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for
> this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
>
>
>
> As someone said, these are all bad if your channel is insecure.
>
> Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.
normally, iSCSI is done over dedicated SAN networks not even connected
to your normal LAN
I suppose it can be secured but usually there's not even any
authnetication, just targets masked by the initiators IP
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--000325559bba2c5c4e047e49b5bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Dave
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>>
>> let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem would be best for this
>> type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?
>>
>
>
> As someone said, these are all bad if your channel is insecure.
>
> Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
>
Even through an SSH tunnel?
If this is the case, what other options are available?
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bba2c5c4e047e49b5bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Dave <tdbtdb+cen=
tos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30 =
PM, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@gmail.com> wrote:
let's keep the question simple. WHICH filesystem wo=
uld be best for this type of operation? SMB, NFS, or iSCSI?As someone said, these are all=
bad if your channel is insecure. =A0
Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust=
.=A0Dave

_______________________________________________
Even through an SSH tunnel?=
If this is the case, what other options are available?=A0-- Kind RegardsRudi AhlersSoftDu=
x
Website: http://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.=
comOffice: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--000325559bba2c5c4e047e49b5bb--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009D_01CAA0D3.EA981720
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 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

Is there an environmental restriction in your application or organization
for this? Normally CIFS mounts can umounted easily in runtime.

At any rate... if I were in your shoes and really restricted to the options
you propose, I would go with CIFS mounts through IPSEC tunnels.

-geoff

---------------------------------
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
http://german-way.com/blog/
------=_NextPart_000_009D_01CAA0D3.EA981720
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










> 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
 =

Is there an =
environmental
restriction in your application or organization for this?  Normally =
CIFS mounts
can umounted easily in runtime.
 =

At any rate... =
if I were
in your shoes and really restricted to the options you propose, I would =
go with
CIFS mounts through IPSEC tunnels.  =
 
 =

-geoff=

 =


---------------------------------
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
http://german-way.com/blog/




------=_NextPart_000_009D_01CAA0D3.EA981720--

--001517588b7a860593047e4b17ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>
> Is there an environmental restriction in your application or organization
> for this? Normally CIFS mounts can umounted easily in runtime.
>
what do you mean by this?
> At any rate... if I were in your shoes and really restricted to the
> options you propose, I would go with CIFS mounts through IPSEC tunnels.
>
>
>
Wouldn't IPSEC add more overhead than an SSH tunnel?
> -geoff
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Geoff Galitz
> Blankenheim NRW, Germany
> http://www.galitz.org/
> http://german-way.com/blog/
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
--001517588b7a860593047e4b17ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Geoff =
Galitz <geoff@gali=
tz.org> wrote:




> The CIFS mounts can't be unm=
ounted without a
reboot,
> so they build-up a pool of mount=
s to the same
server which cause extra latency
=A0=

Is there an environmental
restriction in your application or organization for this? =A0Normally CIFS =
mounts
can umounted easily in runtime.what do you mean by this?=A0

At =
any rate... if I were
in your shoes and really restricted to the options you propose, I would go =
with
CIFS mounts through IPSEC tunnels.=A0 =A0
=A0=
Wouldn't=
IPSEC add more =A0overhead than an SSH tunnel?
=A0
-ge=
off
=A0=


---------------=
------------------
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
=
http://german-way.com/blog/



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- Kind RegardsRud=
i AhlersSoftDuxWebsite: http=
://www.SoftDux.comTechnical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573Cell: 082 554 7532
--001517588b7a860593047e4b17ec--

Am 28.01.2010 12:28, schrieb Rudi Ahlers:
> NOW, the question is: Which protocol would be best for this? I can only
> think of SMB, NFS& iSCSI
How about NFS v4? It only needs one port which you can tunnel through ssh.
Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Rudi Ahlers wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:27:49 +0200:
> what do you mean by this?
exactly as he says. Any mounts can be undone (mount/umount). Maybe not
thru your Cpanel, but in reality.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

>Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.=A0
No. Not if, but *when* you get the first disconnection, you will
likely incur corruption on the block device. That's like pulling
out a disc on a running server. Doesn't make for a dependable
backup solution...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

--Apple-Mail-150-853357582
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Ross Walker
> wrote:
> 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.
> _______
>
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> Backing up behind the firewall is made easy by using an SSH tunnel :)
Communications is easy, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm
talking the management and coordination of backups from behind the
firewall.
> We already have an offsite backup facility with a 3rd party, nbut I
> need more control over the backups, and want to setup an inhouse
> backup server which where all the client's account (this is hosting
> accounts & VPS's) be backed up to, then this server will do an rsync
> with all the data to the offsite backup server.
You might find this to be a Herculean task that even if implemented,
impossible to support.
-Ross
--Apple-Mail-150-853357582
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jan =
29, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@gmail.com> =
wrote:On Fri, Jan 29, =
2010 at 2:17 AM, Ross Walker <rswwalker@gmail.com>=
wrote:
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.
_______Hi =
Ross, Backing up behind the firewall is =
made easy by using an SSH tunnel =
:)Communications is =
easy, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking the management =
and coordination of backups from behind the =
firewall.We already have an offsite backup =
facility with a 3rd party, nbut I need more control over the backups, =
and want to setup an inhouse backup server which where all the client's =
account (this is hosting accounts & VPS's) be backed up to, then =
this server will do an rsync with all the data to the offsite backup =
server. You might find this =
to be a Herculean task that even if implemented, impossible to =
support.-Ross=
--Apple-Mail-150-853357582--

On 1/29/2010 1:37 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
> Backing up behind the firewall is made easy by using an SSH tunnel :)
>
> We already have an offsite backup facility with a 3rd party, but I need
> more control over the backups, and want to setup an inhouse backup
> server which where all the client's account (this is hosting accounts &
> VPS's) be backed up to, then this server will do an rsync with all the
> data to the offsite backup server.
Can't this be at the same location as the source of the data to
eliminate the latency issue?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos