[brlug-general] OpenFiler?

[Dustin Puryear]

Not just that. I've found that some clients, no matter how you mount
the NFS filesystems, just don't handle a down NFS server right. Linux
would be an example. Maybe there have been improvements.

---
Puryear Information Technology, LLC
Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414
http://www.puryear-it.com

Author:
  "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers"
  "Spam Fighting and Email Security in the 21st Century"

Download your free copies:
  http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm


Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 4:24:13 PM, you wrote:

>    Dustin Puryear wrote:

>  Did they mention anything about fail-over for NFS? :-)
>   

>    I know NetApp claims they can do it.   We do it at $work with Solaris and
>    Veritas Cluster on "traditional" nfs servers.   Data is replicated to a
>    remote data center with Veritas Volume Replicator and the NFS location can
>    be switched from one location to the other fairly easily and
>    transparently.   Such a solution is not cheap, but then, neither is the
>    data that sits on nfs around here so there ya go.

>    If you were going to try and accomplish NFS failover with a homegrown
>    tool, in addition to moving the IP address, you need to make sure the
>    underlying devices on both the primary and the failover have the same
>    major and minor numbers for the failover to work transparently.

>  ---
>  Puryear Information Technology, LLC
>  Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414
>  [1]http://www.puryear-it.com

>  Author:
>    "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers"
>    "Spam Fighting and Email Security in the 21st Century"

>  Download your free copies:
>    [2]http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm


>  Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 2:08:50 PM, you wrote:

>   

>  willhill wrote:
>     

>  I imagine they are making a framework rather than re-inventing all of those
>  tools.  Why fork or remake iSCSI, samba, etc?  The nice thing about having
>  lots of good little tools is that you can chain them together in new and
>  unexpected ways.  Security is easier that way too.  The only thing you have
>  to worry about is the framework doing something silly that thwarts the
>  policy of the components.

>   
>       

>  What they are doing is offering a software packaging of everything that
>  is NetApp's OnTap OS that they use on their NetApp filer boxes -- hence
>  the name.  You still need a piece of hardware with the disks and
>  controllers, but this is essentially an open source competitor for the
>  software inside NetApp's offering and those of similar vendors for their
>  mid-tier storage boxes,
>     

>  Nice tool, Dustin. 

>  On Wednesday 24 January 2007 07:57, michael dolan wrote:
>   
>       

>  ... I'd be worried about security...  Also, so much for doing one thing and
>  doing it well.
>     
>         

>  _______________________________________________
>  General mailing list
>  [3]General at brlug.net
>  [4]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net

>   
>       


>   

>  _______________________________________________
>  General mailing list
>  [5]General at brlug.net
>  [6]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>     


>  _______________________________________________
>  General mailing list
>  [7]General at brlug.net
>  [8]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net

>   

> References

>    Visible links
>    1. http://www.puryear-it.com/
>    2. http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm
>    3. mailto:General at brlug.net
>    4. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>    5. mailto:General at brlug.net
>    6. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>    7. mailto:General at brlug.net
>    8. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net