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

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 a

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

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 firewal

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

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 I would *certainly* not use ssh-tunnels, on a line that is not 100% error free or with high l

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

From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Ahlers Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:23 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:18 AM

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

>Actually I know nothing about iSCSI, maybe it is more robust.  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... ___

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

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 __

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

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 Ce

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

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? Nor

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

> 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...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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 robu

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

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 abo

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

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.. i

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

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

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

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 prepare

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

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 la

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 designe

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

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 > c

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

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 th

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

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

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

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 a

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

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 h

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

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan < raju.rajs...@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

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

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 _