Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

rockstor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#21

Post by feld »

polarix wrote: post #5
yawniek wrote: post #2

the gui looks pretty cool. personally i would not trust btrfs for a nas. i have made not the best experience while running various production servers with btrfs. i switched (back) to zfs and never looked back, it its just better in every regard. i also administer a freenas box for a small business and this stuff is rock solid, i would only wish a _easy_ solution to get the permission stuff right in a multi user setti…

> better in every regard Can't remove raidz's from zpools, but `btrfs device delete` exists.

That's not a bug.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#22

Post by conception »

victorhooi wrote: post #12
sciurus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Apple has supported SMB for a long time, and actually made it the default protocol in 10.9, is there much need for AFP?

I'm running AFP on FreeNAS. I also have SMB setup. I'm using OSX 10.9.4, and I've seen better performance over AFP than with SMB. So yes, it'd be nice to have AFP support.

AFP is generally faster than SMB and SMB2, but SMB3 should be faster than AFP. YMMV of course.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#23

Post by schakrava »

RickHull wrote: post #17

My very first questions regarding a potential storage solution revolve around data loss: 1. Can we enumerate the data loss scenarios? 2. How is drive failure handled? 3. How may data be corrupted and such corruption detected? 4. For every data loss scenario, what is the recovery procedure? Here is all I could find: http://rockstor.com/docs/faq.html#how-do-i-prevent-data-loss... Of course, there is a wealth of informa…

That is great feedback for us. I've added a documentation issue with your feedback: https://github.com/rockstor/rockstor-doc/issues/37

We have added appliances appliance replication recently, which can play an important role in recovering from bigger disasters.

We'll have all that documented. Please feel free to participate on our github.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#24

Post by Elhana »

polarix wrote: post #5
yawniek wrote: post #2

the gui looks pretty cool. personally i would not trust btrfs for a nas. i have made not the best experience while running various production servers with btrfs. i switched (back) to zfs and never looked back, it its just better in every regard. i also administer a freenas box for a small business and this stuff is rock solid, i would only wish a _easy_ solution to get the permission stuff right in a multi user setti…

> better in every regard Can't remove raidz's from zpools, but `btrfs device delete` exists.

But lacking raid5/6, even N-way mirrors. ZFS is not perfect, but btrfs is not even close in terms of features.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#25

Post by schakrava »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #19

The only data protection options I could find were Raid 1, and 10. (raid 0 is a performance option) and as data loss on attempting to re-silver a 3TB mirror is 1 in 5, data protection here is not enterprise quality yet). The UI stuff is great, but the tricky bit about building a storage system is not provisioning it, or getting the access protocols right, it is all about finding all the ways that data can be destroye…

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. It's a tall order and we have work cut out.

I've started to do some DR testing myself, but it will take a little while to publish our findings and recommendations.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#30

Post by rbanffy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #19

The only data protection options I could find were Raid 1, and 10. (raid 0 is a performance option) and as data loss on attempting to re-silver a 3TB mirror is 1 in 5, data protection here is not enterprise quality yet). The UI stuff is great, but the tricky bit about building a storage system is not provisioning it, or getting the access protocols right, it is all about finding all the ways that data can be destroye…

> raid 0 is a performance option

Once I won a bet that RAID 1 was actually faster than RAID 0 on a given scenario.

Post reply on HN