On Apr 28, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: Be aware there are all sorts of caveats/complexities with iSCSI on FreeBSD. There are past threads on -stable and -fs talking about them in great detail. I personally wouldn't go this route.
Why can't OS X use CIFS? It has the ability to mount a SMB filesystem, right? Is there some reason you can't mount that, then tell TM to write its backups to /mountedcifs? Ahh... I see. Well this works perfectly (iSCSI on ZFS): http://www.nexenta.org/ Perhaps we will see some improvements in the future. As for CIFS, yes some people do that. I wouldn't, but whatever. Certainly you won't see _better_ performance. Most people choose AFP for this (as did the original poster). http://www.nickebo.net/tag/benchmark/ (there are plenty of others) As you can read in my previous posts, Time Machine needs block storage. If you don't use block storage, it will emulate block storage using a disk image, which in this case is generating ~80000 files in one directory (sparse-bands). Good luck with that. If iSCSI is not stable on FreeBSD, then it's probably best not to store Time Machine data on FreeBSD. Some people don't seem to have issues with this (as one other poster mentioned). I suppose it depends on how much and what kind of data you are backing up. I can say that if you are backing up a media library and other normal user data using Time Machine, it definitely performs poorly (unusable) after a while if you are using anything but block based storage. If it hasn't happened to you yet, just wait. It will. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
