Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

26

Whichever OS you can support the best - seriously, for relatively basic stuff as you've described they can all do a good enough job so it comes down to how quickly you can set it up, how often it stays up and running and how quickly you can fix it when it breaks - so in my mind the best is the one that you yourself can deal with best in these situations.


24

LVM is actually quite heavily used. Basically, LVM sits above the hardware (driver) layer. It doesn't add any redundancy or increased reliability (it relies on the underlying storage system to handle reliability). Instead, it provides a lot of added flexibility and additional features. LVM should never see a disk disappear or fail, because the disk ...


20

I vote for NFS. NFSv4.1 added the Parallel NFS pNFS capability, which makes parallel data access possible. I am wondering what kind of clients are using the storage if only Unix-like then I would go for NFS based on the performance figures.


13

The short answer is use NFS. According to this shootout and my own experience, it's faster. But, you've got more options! You should consider a cluster FS like GFS, which is a filesystem multiple computers can access at once. Basically, you share a block device via iSCSI which is a GFS filesystem. All clients (initiators in iSCSI parlance) can read and ...


12

Do you have a spare system? If so, openfiler or FreeNAS have good reputations for being made specifically for this task. Easy to maintain, it's made to be used as a network storage device, has features available like software RAID and the ability to maintain it from a web interface, and you can expand storage relatively easily.


12

Is this idea feasible? No. Does it already exist? Not that I know of. What kind of database could support such an architecture? See above. Honestly, this is a really bad idea on many levels. There's a reason companies keep critical data within the datacenter. You don't want business applications to be dependent on X number of desktop ...


12

The reason you're frustrated is because you're trying to do something that you shouldn't be doing. You say If anyone is now saying, “wait, what about a SAN or a NAS for the file servers?”, well too bad.` You're right. Too bad for you. What you're trying to do cannot work. A cluster disk must be the same disk shared amongst cluster members. You can't ...


11

We have a 2 server load-blanacing web cluster.We have tried the following methods for syncing content between the servers: Local drives on each server synced with RSYNC every 10 minutes A central CIFS (SAMBA) share to both servers A central NFS share to both servers A shared SAN drive running OCFS2 mounted both servers The RSYNC solution was the ...


10

ZFS is really reliable and it sure does make your storage management hell of a lot easier. As a bonus: smb is integrated with ZFS in OpenSolaris and it handles Raid very well. Wait a few days, download the by then released 2009.6 version and give it a go on a test machine. I am sure you will love ZFS. And about your comment ZFS being new: not very new ...


10

Entry-level solutions are Samba and FreeNAS. If you are not comfortable with looking after a *nix server, and given the low number of users, stick to FreeNAS.


10

This borders on opinion but I feel pretty strongly about it - never use a Domain Controller as a file server. Create another VM. Once it's a file server you greatly increase the risks of viruses, you can't shut it down with out impacting file sharing services (where AD and other likely services such as DNS should be redundant on other DC's). DC's should be ...


9

I agree with what @sysadmin1138 said in his answer and voted it up but I have a few comments and my experience I'd like to add. Prior to doing IT fulltime I ran a small graphics department for 8 years dealing with this sort of stuff. We had 3 artist and close to 50 node cluster of rendering computers creating and processing image sequences, video frames, ...


8

The central question is: "How important is this data?" If the answer is "I can recreate it easily" you want RAID5, possibly with LVM on top of it for simplicity of management. If the answer is "I can recreate it but it would take a while and people would complain" you want RAID 6 or more likely RAID 1/10. If the answer is "Nobody does any work while I ...


8

Use the "iostat -x" command to check your disk utilization. The await column is the average wait time in milliseconds. If it's consistently high (more than a couple hundred) on your storage volumes, then you're definitely I/O bound. Assuming this is the case, either a bigger server or a SAN solution could meet your needs, so long as it's sized to meet your ...


8

It depends on what you are trying to do. While Raid 10 would give you faster reads and writes of the two, as you said, it is possible to lose everything if you lose the wrong two drives. But on larger disk arrays you could lose exactly half the drives and retain full operations. But with Raid 6, your writes could be a bit slower b/c of the extra checksum. ...


8

This question isn't related to system administration but when I read it so many warning alarms went off that I just have to answer. I really have to tell you that your entire concept is so far off the mark that you won't find anyone else doing it. For starters, SQLite is unsuited to such jobs and the fact that you've had some success with it is more due to ...


8

Your question is both vague and highly subjective. Having worked with most of the popular Linux distros, I've yet to find a single distro which is 'perfect' for any particular need. You should rather approach this topic from a different angle. With which Linux distros are you familiar enough to be able to set up the system yourself and provide its ongoing ...


7

Imho ClamAV would be the best choise.


7

ClamAV is generally regarded as a reasonable anti-virus. Although that said it doesn't have herustics (last I checked anyhow). It does however have on-access scanning.


7

I would like to build a file server for backups. The server needs to be available 24/7 in a mixed Windows/Linux network, but service should not exceed 1 hour per day. Thats why power consumption is my main priority. What do you think is the best hardware to build it? What about software ? do you suggest a Linux distribution ? In my ...


7

I'm not going to give you pricing since that's so highly localized as to be meaningless. Looking purely at the storage usage patterns you're proposing, the biggest I/O driver I'm seeing is the video and graphic design. Video tends to be very large. Large enough that you might run into network I/O bottlenecks before you run into disk I/O bottlenecks. It ...


7

If RAID is "outdated" for you I'm assuming you want something with end to end checksumming (i.e. bit-rot protection). As was mentioned BTRFS is not ready for any kind of non-development environment, it's still under development. ZFS under fuse does work to a certain extent, but performance (speed) is poor, and reliability long term is a big unknown. If ...


7

http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2006/09/22/457319.aspx anaswers your question on quota behaviour on cluster nodes. Note this is for FSRM quotas. FSRM and NTFS quotas are apparently different. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915042. Which do you have? Also see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770989(WS.10).aspx#BKMK_FSRMvsNTFS ...


7

Do rack-mounter servers have OS's? Rack-mount servers are the same as tower servers they just fit nicely in a rack, so yes they have an OS. Do i configure these servers directly or from another computer? Normally, for me, you configure them directly then you use some kind of remote connection tool such as Remote Desktop to connection to them and ...


6

Anti-virus on Linux systems really isn't required, the threats just aren't out there for it. However, if you can't get around the corporate mandate, follow Node's advice and just install ClamAV and a small cron job to do a periodic sweep of the system.


6

EDIT: Why not to start with a fileserver Don't start with a fileserver unless you feel comfortable enough to troubleshoot it in case of failure without vast amounts of downtime, you don't want your users to be waiting for a file restore for hours/days just because you set up samba and now have some component failing that you don't know how to fix. I'd ...


6

Your problem probably lies with the IDE drives in the older machine. I've hit this myself on large servers (15 drive "SATA I" arrays). Depending on the load, you can probably do fine upgrading to a server with new SATA drives, or if you have the money, SAS. For example of the boost you'll get, when I went from a 15 drive RAID5 of SATA drives (on a 3ware ...


6

One possibility is to build a server around a mini-ITX board with a VIA EPIA CPU which can be used to build fanless computers. The other possibility is to build it around a mini-ITX that uses an Intel ATOM CPU such as the Zotac ION. In either case, you would probably want to put the hard drives outside the computer case, in their own box with its own ...


6

You definitely want a 64bit capable CPU. Raw speed is less of an issue, more cores helps. A CPU/chipset with ECC RAM support is also a good idea if you care about your data, which limits you to Phenoms and a motherboard that supports ECC RAM, or a Xeon. It depends if your working set fits into memory, and what else is running on the server at the same time. ...


6

Yes. As far as I know, WebDAV is designed to work like a filesystem, over HTTP. For Apache there is mod_dav, and from a quick check on the Interwebs, IIS has it built-in, somehow. Maybe WebDAV is something that could help you. -Chris



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible