On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:38 AM, TekBudda <tekbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IIRC you have an Active Directory server in your house, you could just > > open up the LDAP (or better LDAPS) port and point your OC install to > > that. There is an LDAP module for OC. > > *** That server is getting pretty long in the tooth. I will likely > rebuild the the 2003 environment but most likely virtualized in the Cent OS > > My home Windows environment is dying a slow death now that technet is no longer available. Windows servers go dark, never to be seen again. > > I am unclear what you are trying to do with your DNS323 since you > > already have a CentOS server. You could try to shoehorn OC into the > > DNS323, but that device is so resource constrained that performance > > would not be great. What I would do is have the storage local to the > > CentOS box and then have a cronjob to copy the data to the dns323. Even > > better would be to have version backups with something like > > rdiff-backup, duplicity, etc. You would still need to mount the dns323 > > share (either SMB or NFS) on the CentOS box. Ideally you really want > > the backup to be automated and off site. > > *** The DNS-323 is the data storage seperate from the server. > Essentially... think of it as a storage array. I am nt so much > concerned about the speed as it is pretty much for home use & more of a > proof of concept type thing. Something I could suggest to someone as a > solution. I have been doing the backups t the external drive manually s > far...but you are right...I wuld like it to be automated. The off-site > portion would be the external drive that would travel with me. That > way...a worst case scenario where I didnt have access to the house (i.e. > flood, fire, PHTF, etc.) I would still have a bulk of the data present. > Ideally though you are right...an off-site solution would be best. If > I had the resources I would definately be buying better equipment & > doing something off-site. > > This is doable, though generally being familiar with iSCSI would be of greater utility (not something the 323 provides). With 4 or less hypervisor nodes, direct attached storage is probably the better choice (I have seen companies have a couple of hypervisors for "high availability", but then back end it all into a single NAS to save cost, this is a pretty dumb configuration and a waste of money). I know that NASs are pretty feature rich these days, and it can be tempting to use all of those features, but I would suggest a different path. iSCSI is also incredibly easy to screw up and not know about it until it is too late. Basically I do not see the point of using the 323 in this case as it will only teach bad storage habits. Instead I would focus on a killer CentOS configuration. You can get disk redundancy with mdadm or btrfs (pretty much all the RAID levels are supported with a bunch of stuff that RAID arrays cannot do). If you are looking for inspiration I would check out this article http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/ For an advanced setup get a second Linux machine and do replication or better still, play with clustered file systems (gluster, ceph, swift, gpfs and many more). The take away is that a NAS like the DNS323 or the simply incredible Synology boxes, hide all of the details that you actually want to learn and eventually use as marketable skills.
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list clug-talk@clug.ca http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
