I do have DFS-R in production, that replaced sometimes netapp ones. But no similar workload as my current GFS.
In active/active, the most common issue is file changed on both side (no global lock) Will users access same content from linux & windows ? Cordialement, Mathieu CHATEAU http://www.lotp.fr 2015-08-09 21:18 GMT+02:00 David <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Thank you very much for detailed answer. > > Most of the clients are Windows based OS's, but Linux will come in the > future. > Now I know that Windows does a bad job with NFS, so this is one concern > that I have, but I also worried about performance and stability. > I used to work with NFS clustered environments, also with GPFS and CTDB > exporting both NFS and CIFS servicing 100s of users and render farms with > no issues. > > Are you aware of any performance challenges/limitations of DFS-R, I mean > real world ones compared to Linux? I aware of MS official DFS docs. > Wonder if there is a comparison of same HW, one runs Gluster replica > (ontop of XFS/Ext4) compared to two nodes DFS-R. (checking concurrent CIFS > session, IOps, network utilization while sync etc..) > > Thanks again, > David > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Mathieu Chateau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> By DFS, you mean DFS-R. >> Because DFS can also be used only as domain space (DFS-N). This allow to >> publish share that hide real server name and so allow to move target >> somewhere else as needed. >> >> As I do quite a lot of DFS-R, here are the differences using DFS-R >> instead of Gluster: >> >> - Replication occurs between servers. Client only connect to one of >> ther server (can be based on AD topology), and is not aware that it's >> DFS-R. >> - Replication only transmit block changed in files, not the whole file >> - Replication is tracked using an internal Jet database >> - You have reporting tool to see differences & co between servers >> - This is active/active. If a client can/connect to a server, it will >> work there. >> - Lock on files are not replicated. If same file is changed on 2 >> servers at same time, replication will log that in event log and put file >> that lost in lost&found folder (the more recent win) >> - Not any issue browsing files/folder tree. Everything act like if it >> was just a file server. >> - You can use NTFS permission to fine grain access (Go further than >> unix style from my point of view) >> - Quota are working >> - You can prevent file based on extension >> - New version can deduplicate content (file server standard) >> - Writes are not synchronous. Once file is written, it's replicated >> in the background. >> >> >> Main difference is that you can't strip inside share content over >> multiple servers like if they were just one (the distributed feature of >> Gluster). Things are evolving with Windows Server 2016, but not yet RTM. >> You can also use shared storage in a more cluster way, with or without >> DFS replication (to survive a server down). >> >> We nearly always use both DFS-R and DFS-N, so we can migrate share to a >> different server without changes on client side. >> >> NAS & SAN vendors don't have choice. NetApp can't use Windows, else they >> can't customize it deeper enough, and they would have to pay license to MS. >> I always found that using a linux for CIFS is far away from feature you >> have on Windows side, and issue it generate (like robocopy diff. not >> working without /FFT flag). >> >> Backup of NetApp or EMC CIFS is just not working if doing that through >> share, you have to use NDMP, which is proprietary and generate others issue >> to backup (NDMP license, need to write directly itself on tape...). >> >> What will be your clients ? Windows box ? Linux ? Both ? If both, going >> to same shares? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialement, >> Mathieu CHATEAU >> http://www.lotp.fr >> >> 2015-08-09 17:56 GMT+02:00 David <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I need some help in making this call choosing between the two. >>> I have no experience with MS DFS or with Windows server OS as a file >>> server. >>> >>> There are some developers that pushing the DFS direction, mostly because >>> the applications that will use it and access will be from Microsoft using >>> CIFS. >>> >>> Now I know that most serious storage, NAS and SAN vendors work with >>> Linux or Unix based because of performance and flexibility, and I'm afraid >>> that DFS will just won't carry the expected load. >>> >>> Does anyone has experience with it? >>> Can some tell what are the PROS and CONS of each that can help us to >>> make a call? >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> David >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
