Re: NFS vs SMb vs iSCSI for remote backup mounts

[Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, nate <centos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get some input from people who have used these options for
> mounting a remote server to a local server. Basically, I need to replicate /
> backup data from one server to another, but over the internet (i.e. insecure
> channels)

NFS and CIFS and iSCSI are all terrible for WAN backups(assuming
you don't have a WAN optimization appliance), tons of overhead.
Use rsync over SSH, or rsync over HPNSSH. I transfer over a TB of
data a day using rsync over HPNSSH across several WANs.

nate

_______________________________________________

Hi Nate,

We used to do it like that - rsync over SSH, but the amount of support calls we got with this solution was just too much.

So, instead we mounted the backup volumes on the servers, and the end users (most of them being developers & graphic designers) could have direct access to their backups. 

Currently we mount the SMB share over SSH, then rsync to it:

ssh -f -N -L 139:usabackup01:139 softdux@usabackup01
mount -t cifs //localhost/backups /bck/ -o username=xxxxxx,password=xxxxxxx

rsync -avz /home/pete/* /bck/home/pete/

^ this is just a quick sample. The different control panels use rsync differently, and some users have their own rsync scripts as well. 

But, I don't know if this is optimal. i.e. are other protocols which will work better, and I could only think of iSCSI & NFS, but I don't know if they're any better. 

-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com

Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos