I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it's the opportunistic locking that is the issue.
Years ago we used a Dell NAS with Linux with great success. --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Michael Oke, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Oke, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Getting errors on NAS > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 8:29 PM > I've used a number of off-the-shelf NAS boxes with great > success. The > units from LaCie and SNAP have been the best for me. I > currently have > an application that runs on a SNAP box with between 25 and > 35 users > accessing it at any given time. The O/S on this unit is a > customized > unix/linux variant and seems to work very well. The > LaCie's use Windows > Embedded and support a lower number of concurrent users but > they have > functioned well, to date. > > That said, I have been using more linux-based boxes > recently and am > currently testing a box running freeNAS, with good results > so far. > > ::michael > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > That might be the next step for me if this continues > to throw off errors. > > > > Cheaper than Windows Server but more than NAS. > > > > > > --- On Mon, 9/8/08, Gil Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Gil Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: RE: Getting errors on NAS > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 7:55 PM > >>> Not that I don't trust Belkin or Buffalo > or LinkSys > >> or Lacie, but I'd > >>> elect to set up a Linux box I'm in control > of, > >> instead of risking being > >>> burned down the line. > >> Ditto. I have had tremendous success using Ubuntu > (and > >> Suse) Linux on a > >> File server. Not that NT4/2000/2003 Server were > not good. > >> It is more that > >> Ubuntu Linux cost me nothing, and it comes with > Samba to > >> share its Hard > >> Drives (yes, the Linux boxes had SCSI Hard Drives > >> <g>). > >> > >> Gil > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Paul > >> McNett > >>> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 6:21 PM > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Subject: Re: Getting errors on NAS > >>> > >>> > >>> Graham Brown wrote: > >>>> Hmm interesting. > >>>> > >>>> I have a meeting with clients on Wednesday > to > >> discuss moving a > >>>> standalone application to a NAS box on a > peer to > >> peer network. Same sort > >>>> of user count. > >>>> > >>>> Not sure if this is a good idea or not at > the mo. > >>> One thing to keep in mind is that NAS > doesn't > >> refer to a particular > >>> solution, but "Network Attached > Storage" in > >> general. If you purchase a > >>> NAS you are trusting the software running on > that to > >> serve the data > >>> correctly. > >>> > >>> Not that I don't trust Belkin or Buffalo > or > >> LinkSys or Lacie, but I'd > >>> elect to set up a Linux box I'm in control > of, > >> instead of risking being > >>> burned down the line. > >>> > >>> All a NAS is is some hard disks with huge > volumes, > >> configured to > >>> read/write data using protocols like NetBIOS, > FTP, > >> NFS, and SCP. > >>> You get what you pay for. > >>> > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
