[Cialug] Best Local SAN performance

[Matt]

I think the case for NFS over SMB is when you need the filesystem on the 
share to support POSIX permissions.  It would be better in the case of 
say, instead of mounting user home directories locally, you wanted to 
mount them over the LAN.  As far as I know, SMB doesn't support POSIX 
owner/group and permission bits.  If you only need the shares to be file 
stores, and the only permission controls you need are that a specific 
user has access to a share (rather than individual files with differing 
read/write/execute permissions), then SMB is just fine.  That isn't to 
say that you can't accomplish the same permission granularity with SMB, 
just that it is a lot of work because you have to use windows-style 
access control lists, and those ACLs aren't exactly native to Linux...

There has been a lot of blurring between SAN and NAS concepts, here.  
Generally a SAN is a block level device that is available via the 
network, while a NAS is a software layer that exposes a "share" to users 
with access to it.  You can use special filesystems that allow for 
multiple systems to mount that same block device, but many of those are 
somewhat questionable in their stability.  The first thing that pops 
into my head when I think of a filesystem that allows multiple systems 
to mount the same block device is GlusterFS.  Sadly, I've never had a 
chance to play with it, so other than knowing the name, I can't be any 
help.  I'm pretty sure it is maintained by the Redhat people.  I bet 
Theron could talk about it for days at a time if you were really 
interested.

-- Matt (N0BOX)

On 6/23/2020 4:03 PM, Dave Hala wrote:
> I wouldn't discount just because we run linux.  Everyone has a couple of
> windows machines somewhere.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:32 PM Jared Brees <fromj2sitsme at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I have far fewer issues connecting to SMB shares than NFS shares from my
>> Linux boxes. It's on my to-do list to convert my NFS share to an SMB share.
>> SMB is far from "only" being useful with Windows clients. One of the things
>> SMB does better (in my opinion) than NFS is access control.
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/b5ba8t/nfs_vs_samba_whats_the_trend_nowadays/
>> - you've got more options with SMB.
>>
>> You can always use everything mentioned.... make the backplane iSCSI, have
>> the server serve up AFP + SMB + NFS, throw in WebDAV, FTP if you wanna get
>> crazy.
>>
>> If you don't care about multi-user or multi-machine (simultaneous) access,
>> and all of your potential clients are Linux... sure, NFS is probably best.
>> But the performance gap really isn't much in most cases:
>> https://blog.ja-ke.tech/2019/08/27/nas-performance-sshfs-nfs-smb.html
>>
>> Also, you mentioned this is for your dev machines... wouldn't a Git server
>> be better suited to that?
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Cialug <cialug-bounces at cialug.org> on behalf of L. V. Lammert <
>> lvl at omnitec.net>
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 12:48
>> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group <cialug at cialug.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Cialug] Best Local SAN performance
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Scott Yates wrote:
>>
>>> The only caution i would give with regards to SMB would be
>>> filepermissions.  NFS is probably the safest bet if your clients are
>>> linux.
>>>
>> Agreed, .. SMB is only useful with Windoze clients.
>>
>>          Lee
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>