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

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#11

Post by schakrava »

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…

Thanks. We believe it's a matter of short time before btrfs will be trusted enough.

Can you elaborate on the permission-stuff issue you have? We'd love to get it right in Rockstor.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#12

Post by victorhooi »

sciurus wrote: post #8
jms703 wrote: post #3

no afp support?

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.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#13

Post by victorhooi »

Interesting =).

I'm currently running Freenas with ZFS.

Would be curious to see how this compares.

The one thing missing for me on FreeNAS is some kind of file search/indexing feature.

I wonder if the fact that this is Linux based will make adding something like that easier.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#14

Post by schakrava »

victorhooi wrote: post #13

Interesting =). I'm currently running Freenas with ZFS. Would be curious to see how this compares. The one thing missing for me on FreeNAS is some kind of file search/indexing feature. I wonder if the fact that this is Linux based will make adding something like that easier.

Perhaps. I have some ideas about search features. We can also get some cool stats efficiently from btrfs trees also. But I'd love to hear your thoughts. Is it possible for you to give more input on search/indexing that you wish to see? You can even write to us directly -- support@rockstor.com or file an issue on github: https://github.com/rockstor/rockstor-core

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#16

Post by victorhooi »

schakrava wrote: post #14
victorhooi wrote: post #13

Interesting =). I'm currently running Freenas with ZFS. Would be curious to see how this compares. The one thing missing for me on FreeNAS is some kind of file search/indexing feature. I wonder if the fact that this is Linux based will make adding something like that easier.

Perhaps. I have some ideas about search features. We can also get some cool stats efficiently from btrfs trees also. But I'd love to hear your thoughts. Is it possible for you to give more input on search/indexing that you wish to see? You can even write to us directly -- support@rockstor.com or file an issue on github: https://github.com/rockstor/rockstor-core

I've just filed a support ticket here:

https://github.com/rockstor/rockstor-core/issues/484

Hmm, stats - don't know much about this topic, but I'd been keen to hear more about what's possible.

On the file indexing front, I think Recoll and Tracker/MetaTracker are the two most active projects - Recoll being the more active one. Strigi and Beagle are both discontinued.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#17

Post by RickHull »

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 information on such questions for standard RAID, but I would suggest for marketing purposes that rockstor synthesize available information (from the many relevant layers of data management) in a coherent fashion, specific to their product. It doesn't have to be deep, but it should be at least minimally comprehensive and broad, with pointers to more detailed, layer-specific information.

Also, it's fine if the recovery scenario is "restore from backup" for e.g. the scenario where data is deleted by an authorized user. If so, there should be at least a minimal "backup story".

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#19

Post by ChuckMcM »

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 destroyed (both silently and noisily) and guarding against them. So if you want to stick with the Enterprise target, then you need something like the ZFS On Linux page which describes every way you can get data zapped and how you will prevent that from happening.

If you want to be just an off the shelf "hey here's something that will make your access point into something like a NAS device." then you get to lose data when a disk goes bad, or a memory chip goes bad, or a network cable is loose, or the powersupply cuts out, or the cat knocks it off the table etc.

Re: Rockstor, a Linux and BTRFS Based NAS Solution

#20

Post by feld »

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…

Where did you get your hilarious "data loss on attempting to re-silver a 3TB mirror is 1 in 5" statistic from?
Post reply on HN