FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-19-2010, 04:02 PM
Boris Epstein
 
Default redundant networked secure file system recommendation

Hi all,

We are currently running a NFS-based server centric setup. I would
like to set up something where I can easily have more than one
redundant server, security/authentication (this part seems a little
flaky with NFS, at least did several years ago), with the capability
to easily add/remove servers as necessary, take redundant servers down
for maintenance, etc. Total volume we expect to run on the server side
will be somewhere between 10-30 TB. The servers will most likely be
CentOS machines, the clients mostly Linux machines with some Macs and
possibly Windows (the latter part not that important).

Any insight, thoughts and recommendations will be much appreciated.

Thanks.

Boris.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-21-2010, 08:03 PM
Devin Reade
 
Default redundant networked secure file system recommendation

Boris Epstein <borepstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are currently running a NFS-based server centric setup. I would
> like to set up something where I can easily have more than one
> redundant server, security/authentication

Have you considered an NFS cluster based on pacemaker/openais/corosync?
See <http://www.clusterlabs.org/>. One possible config is an active/passive
cluster using NFS on top of DRBD. I've never clustered samba, but it
looks like others have done it:
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~wschlich/src/sys-cluster/heartbeat-scripts-4/ocf-ra/samba>

Google will show you various problems with active/active clusters related to
both GFS2 and samba. Don't try to have your NFS servers also be NFS
clients.

For reasonable security/authentication, you'd probably want to integrate
with kerberos.

Devin

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-22-2010, 05:35 AM
Christoph Maser
 
Default redundant networked secure file system recommendation

Am 19.07.2010 18:02, schrieb Boris Epstein:
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently running a NFS-based server centric setup. I would
> like to set up something where I can easily have more than one
> redundant server, security/authentication (this part seems a little
> flaky with NFS, at least did several years ago), with the capability
> to easily add/remove servers as necessary, take redundant servers down
> for maintenance, etc. Total volume we expect to run on the server side
> will be somewhere between 10-30 TB. The servers will most likely be
> CentOS machines, the clients mostly Linux machines with some Macs and
> possibly Windows (the latter part not that important).
>
> Any insight, thoughts and recommendations will be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Boris.
>

I think about buying a HP LeftHand SAN wich is an iSCSI cluster sytem.
One could use that as backend for two failover hosts serving GFS via NFS.

+C

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-22-2010, 09:33 AM
Emmanuel Noobadmin
 
Default redundant networked secure file system recommendation

I'm still exploring options for a similar situation and at the moment
gluster seems to fit the requirements.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org