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 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
01-28-2010, 11:14 AM
Rudi Ahlers
NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
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 <Rudi@softdux.com> 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?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
01-28-2010, 12:49 PM
Les Mikesell
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 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
01-28-2010, 01:04 PM
"nate"
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 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
01-28-2010, 08:01 PM
Rudi Ahlers
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. *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 *
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
01-28-2010, 08:13 PM
Rudi Ahlers
NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, nate <centos@linuxpowered.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 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:
^ 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.*
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
01-28-2010, 08:26 PM
Les Mikesell
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
> 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 <mailto: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
01-28-2010, 08:34 PM
Les Mikesell
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 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
01-28-2010, 09:30 PM
Rudi Ahlers
NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
01-28-2010, 09:44 PM
Les Mikesell
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 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
NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts
