[9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Aram Hăvărneanu
Hello, I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and Mac OS X. I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from anywh

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Anthony Sorace
On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote: > What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use > either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device. note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure notification, in particular, can be lacking, and t

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread John Floren
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Anthony Sorace wrote: > On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote: > >> Can anyone shed some light on why I might want one and not the other? >> Are there any other options? > > ken's fs is a kernel, and essentially gives you a 9p-accessible file storage >

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread erik quanstrom
> > What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use > > either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device. > > note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure > notification, in particular, can be lacking, and they're more restricted in > what > they tr

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread erik quanstrom
> Right now (only one location) I am using a Solaris server with ZFS > that serves SMB and iSCSI. It works great, there's nothing wrong with > it, but I would like a Plan9 solution. Or do you think iSCSI would > perform better with this latency? (I can't use AoE as AoE is not > routable). use a la

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Bakul Shah
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file > servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and > Mac OS X. > > I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of netw

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread John Floren
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= >  wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file >> servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and >> Ma

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Skip Tavakkolian
if the link is stable, cfs(4) might be useful. -Skip On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= >  wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file >> servers. I'm hoping

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread erik quanstrom
> > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p > > operation? (I have 100Mbit). > > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be > 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on > 100Mbps lin

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread erik quanstrom
> Ken's FS serves only 9P and can be a hassle to set up and get going. > In my opinion, if you can live without ephemeral snapshots, just run > fossil+venti with snapshots turned off, which should eliminate the > stability complaint. since it's job is to be a plan 9 file server, this should be nei

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Tristan Plumb
> > > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p > > > operation? (I have 100Mbit). > > > > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more > > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be > > 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on >

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread John Floren
On Aug 17, 2011 10:40 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote: > > slower than transferring via HTTP. When I tested 9P vs. HTTP over > > connections with 25 ms latency (50ms RTT), I saw a 4x slowdown versus > > HTTP. Even at 15 ms RTT, transfers took twice as long. > > did you do testing at regular lan latenci

Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers

2011-08-17 Thread Bakul Shah
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:29:29 EDT erik quanstrom wrote: > > > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p > > > operation? (I have 100Mbit). > > > > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more > > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be > >