[Gluster-users] Need help making a decision choosing MS DFS or Gluster+SAMBA+CTDB

[David]

No, but files can be accessed from different clients from different nodes.

OK, so from what you are saying, there is no stability or other issues with
DFS keeping an eye on workload, and as long as files accessed from one
node, right?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Mathieu Chateau <mathieu.chateau at lotp.fr>
wrote:

> I do have DFS-R in production, that replaced sometimes netapp ones.
> But no similar workload as my current GFS.
>
> In active/active, the most common issue is file changed on both side (no
> global lock)
> Will users access same content from linux & windows ?
>
>
> Cordialement,
> Mathieu CHATEAU
> http://www.lotp.fr
>
> 2015-08-09 21:18 GMT+02:00 David <david.peer at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you very much for detailed answer.
>>
>> Most of the clients are Windows based OS's, but Linux will come in the
>> future.
>> Now I know that Windows does a bad job with NFS, so this is one concern
>> that I have, but I also worried about performance and stability.
>> I used to work with NFS clustered environments, also with GPFS and CTDB
>> exporting both NFS and CIFS servicing 100s of users and render farms with
>> no issues.
>>
>> Are you aware of any performance challenges/limitations of DFS-R, I mean
>> real world ones compared to Linux? I aware of MS official DFS docs.
>> Wonder if there is a comparison of same HW, one runs Gluster replica
>> (ontop of XFS/Ext4) compared to two nodes DFS-R. (checking concurrent CIFS
>> session, IOps, network utilization while sync etc..)
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Mathieu Chateau <mathieu.chateau at lotp.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> By DFS, you mean DFS-R.
>>> Because DFS can also be used only as domain space (DFS-N). This allow to
>>> publish share that hide real server name and so allow to move target
>>> somewhere else as needed.
>>>
>>> As I do quite a lot of DFS-R, here are the differences using DFS-R
>>> instead of Gluster:
>>>
>>>    - Replication occurs between servers. Client only connect to one of
>>>    ther server (can be based on AD topology), and is not aware that it's DFS-R.
>>>    - Replication only transmit block changed in files, not the whole
>>>    file
>>>    - Replication is tracked using an internal Jet database
>>>    - You have reporting tool to see differences & co between servers
>>>    - This is active/active. If a client can/connect to a server, it
>>>    will work there.
>>>    - Lock on files are not replicated. If same file is changed on 2
>>>    servers at same time, replication will log that in event log and put file
>>>    that lost in lost&found folder (the more recent win)
>>>    - Not any issue browsing files/folder tree. Everything act like if
>>>    it was just a file server.
>>>    - You can use NTFS permission to fine grain access (Go further than
>>>    unix style from my point of view)
>>>    - Quota are working
>>>    - You can prevent file based on extension
>>>    - New version can deduplicate content (file server standard)
>>>    - Writes are not synchronous. Once file is written, it's replicated
>>>    in the background.
>>>
>>>
>>> Main difference is that you can't strip inside share content over
>>> multiple servers like if they were just one (the distributed feature of
>>> Gluster). Things are evolving with Windows Server 2016, but not yet RTM.
>>> You can also use shared storage in a more cluster way, with or without
>>> DFS replication (to survive a server down).
>>>
>>> We nearly always use both DFS-R and DFS-N, so we can migrate share to a
>>> different server without changes on client side.
>>>
>>> NAS & SAN vendors don't have choice. NetApp can't use Windows, else they
>>> can't customize it deeper enough, and they would have to pay license to MS.
>>> I always found that using a linux for CIFS is far away from feature you
>>> have on Windows side, and issue it generate (like robocopy diff. not
>>> working without /FFT flag).
>>>
>>> Backup of NetApp or EMC CIFS is just not working if doing that through
>>> share, you have to use NDMP, which is proprietary and generate others issue
>>> to backup (NDMP license, need to write directly itself on tape...).
>>>
>>> What will be your clients ? Windows box ? Linux ? Both ? If both, going
>>> to same shares?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cordialement,
>>> Mathieu CHATEAU
>>> http://www.lotp.fr
>>>
>>> 2015-08-09 17:56 GMT+02:00 David <david.peer at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I need some help in making this call choosing between the two.
>>>> I have no experience with MS DFS or with Windows server OS as a file
>>>> server.
>>>>
>>>> There are some developers that pushing the DFS direction, mostly
>>>> because the applications that will use it and access will be from Microsoft
>>>> using CIFS.
>>>>
>>>> Now I know that most serious storage, NAS and SAN vendors work with
>>>> Linux or Unix based because of performance and flexibility, and I'm afraid
>>>> that DFS will just won't carry the expected load.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone has experience with it?
>>>> Can some tell what are the PROS and CONS of each that can help us to
>>>> make a call?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150810/881ef8da/attachment.html>