Hello, Yes it's much like a standard Windows File servers. You will only monitor DFS-R replication through nagios or so, to check backlog/latency in replication.
For performance, it's all about what you do with a standard Windows file server anyway: - Check raid controller settings - NTFS formatted in 64K, not the 4K default, - Defrag since the beginning through the Windows one (scheduled). O&O can be a great invest for that if 1 volume go much beyond than 2M files - Setup antivirus to only do realtime check on file change, not on access. Exclude DFS database from antivirus scan - Tune network card (send and receive buffer) - ... Start with 2012 R2, to get SMB v3 and all latest stuff Cordialement, Mathieu CHATEAU http://www.lotp.fr 2015-08-10 7:11 GMT+02:00 David <[email protected]>: > No, but files can be accessed from different clients from different nodes. > > OK, so from what you are saying, there is no stability or other issues > with DFS keeping an eye on workload, and as long as files accessed from one > node, right? > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Mathieu Chateau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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
