Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.
openSuse, for example, has had it as default for two years.
Really though, I prefer XFS for anything that isn't a storage machine. VMs need something mature, stable and light. XFS does that well.
But does your preference mean that you will override a default installs choice just because that is your preference?
Using anything but default should have very clear reasons because the first time somebody besides you have to troubleshoot it there will be big problems.
I would often, yes actually. XFS is not like an odd, unsupported option. It's just not the default. It's still completely core to openSuse's design. They simply had to pick which one they were going to use when someone did not choose one or the other and they opted for extra features over lean design for those that don't know which they want, which I think makes sense. Just like CentOS opts for the simplicity of using root for administration instead of sudo, but makes it super easy to enable sudo. It's not default, but it's fully supported. They just had to choose something as default.
Only time and money, need in a business is always a function of money.
I mean all of them combine.
You are correct.
Need dictates the other two.
Well, the other two dictate need. Businesses aren't a "need" based thing. They have a goal: profits. Backup restore time is a discussion about time. So the technical piece gives us the time axis and that we are talking about a business gives us a cost one. That's it. The idea of "need" should never really come up in a business, businesses never need to do anything. They desire profits and all actions should reflect that. The concept of needs only serves to confuse people from the singular mission.
I have used omv in my test lab here and at home a bit. The test lab it worked well, but i just ended up using ubuntu and iscsi when i had to put something in production. omv just has a web interface, some plugins to turn on. Sort of like webmin lite but for only storage. Development seems active; they keep producing new builds.
At home i installed it as a vm for a bit but when i broke my Xenproject i ended up reformatting that drive and omv with it.
What Synology has done, to make this claim kinda legit, is look at what disks "can" stream (which is more than is listed here) and added the "cap" of the network. So if you do a contrived operation that pushes the drives to their throughput limit (a useless number hence why we don't measure drives by that metric) but tells us nothing about performance. That could be just two or three IOPS producing that limit. But in the real world, that's not useful.
I didn't get to make it up, but I have been watching the sessions and burning up my data plan. Thanks for posting these. I also wanted to take a minute to call out the guy sitting front and center to just surf the internet the entire time SAM is talking.
I didn't even notice that, I'm going to look for it now.
@scottalanmiller let's assume that we get direct application access from Word/Writer into SP or NC, how do you send a link to someone else so they know they have access? How do you register that 'link' in some way so that the correct application launches when trying to open the link?
How do you do it today? Why would it need to change at all?
Paying particular attention to Gene's wording, there would be no more files, only data in a DB. In that case, to send the information via email would mean extracting that data into some kind of usable format then emailing it.
So the contents of the file are simply sent as a file.... that's all a file normally is, a database holding text directly on it with a label on it with the filename. So.... literally nothing changes here under the hood. There is no more or less extraction than before.
You were weren't talking about getting rid of docx files and xlsx files, etc?
Yup, and still am. No files, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a file "view".
But OneDrive, etc still store those things as objects, I don't think you can edit the 'Word.doc' file directly inside the DB, you need to send that object of data to Word to edit it.
As objects, not as files. I don't need to pull the files from OneDrive to edit them. I can talk to the database directly with MS Office 2013 or later, even the online version.
Yeah Office is a bad example because of the massive integration.
Or a good example because it shows how easily it can be done and how well people can't even tell.
LOL - yeah, but you are limited to only MS based files, All other files are just stored as objects in the DB.
Are they? I'm not sure of that. But that's always going to be the case. File systems are for ad hoc, unplanned files. The real question should be... why do such files exist in your environment? When do you actually want ad hoc file types that you didn't expect?
Actually Sharepoint does not natively interface .doc files either. It only uses the new format .docx files in the manner you are saying.
Don't I know it.. I was playing with SharePoint and damn if I didn't have all kinds of problems with DOC files.
I added a header into the main topic list for that. But it is going to be later in the Advanced Topics, section. Oddly, I know of pretty much no standard Linux Administration tomes that cover DRBD. It's so core, very odd that it so often gets missed.
Could it be that most Linux Admin's don't know about it until they go searching for it? ...That's how I found out about it.
You would hope that the people writing the books would know, though!
@scottalanmiller hi again....i guess the nfs drive is unmount from the server, because no file record on Nas after the 2016/07/28.....nothing changed on settings.....but a few server shutdown for hardware maintenance.....how can i fix it again ?
Try the mount command again. It might mount right up. If the NFS server has restarted, it would disconnect.
It is not uncommon to only have servers approved to access the storage listed. So many shops will go in and add a server one by one to enable access. If your servers almost never change, this works pretty well and is extremely secure. You can do this in the firewall too, for even more security. But if you are using DevOps and creating and destroying VMs regularly you will want to automate this in some fashion.
@DustinB3403 Thanks for your help! NFS is case sententive, it is mounted now!
Everything outside of the Windows and DOS worlds is case sensitive. SMB, NFS, URLs, file names, passwords, usernames, everything.
Thats what bugs me about Linux ... I hate case sensitive things.
I'm the opposite, I can't stand that DOS can't tell two characters apart and has "close enough" syntax so that people become sloppy and begin to lose the concept of congruency. I remember dealing with a bunch of students and getting them to understand things like "This", "this" and "t h I s" were not congruent was a real problem. Windows teachers users that exact doesn't mean exact, not always.
I think that is why I like cisco's ios software... i don't have to type the full command... just enough to distinguish it from the other commands available.... I see the benefits of case sensitive, it just will take me a bit to get used to using it as I learn Linux.
Looping back to this, in the past month I've worked with three different companies that all experienced significant data loss or downtime because of their choice of FreeNAS. Two suffered from not having front loaded their engineering and had an inability to support their servers during routine operations and caused major outages because of it along with significant cost for repairs, and one company that lost its data because of unnecessary bugs in the FreeNAS GUI code that would have been avoided has they been simply on FreeBSD.
Additionally this past week FreeNAS 10 "Coral" was demonstrated to be so incredibly unstable a month after being released that they had to recall the release and revert to a "beta" status indefinitely. For a trivial end user application this would be bad, for a critical storage infrastructure component on which companies need to have rock solid faith, it's unthinkable.
Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.