On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gary Mills wrote: > You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS, > supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000 > students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
We had actually just finished evaluating Netapp before I started looking into Solaris/ZFS. For a variety of reasons, it was not suitable to our requirements. One, for example, was that it did not support simultaneous operation in an MIT Kerberos realm for NFS authentication while at the same time belonging to an active directory domain for CIFS authentication. Their workaround was to have the filer behave like an NT4 server rather than a Windows 2000+ server, which seemed pretty stupid. That also resulted in the filer not supporting NTLMv2, which was unacceptable. Another issue we had was with access control. Their approach to ACLs was just flat out ridiculous. You had UNIX mode bits, NFSv4 ACLs, and CIFs ACLs, all disjoint, and which one was actually being used and how they interacted was extremely confusing and not even accurately documented. We wanted to be able to have the exact same permissions applied whether via NFSv4 or CIFs, and ideally allow changing permissions via either access protocol. That simply wasn't going to happen with Netapp. Their Kerberos implementation only supported DES, not 3DES or AES, their LDAP integration only supported the legacy posixGroup/memberUid attribute as opposed to the more modern groupOfNames/member attribute for group membership. They have some type of remote management API, but it just wasn't very clean IMHO. As far as quotas, I was less than impressed with their implementation. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
