Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:49:08 -0400 From: Forrest Aldrich <forrie@forrie.com> To: Michael Joyner <mjoyner@vbservices.net> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of iSCSI Message-ID: <415C3904.8030004@forrie.com> In-Reply-To: <415C37B6.7050503@vbservices.net> References: <415A4BB3.3070107@forrie.com> <415BF47F.6070209@vbservices.net> <415C31CB.2070407@forrie.com> <415C37B6.7050503@vbservices.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I see. Our application would be to a backend mailstore - so there would be only the mail-related "ids" that would connect... so I don't know that this would apply. However, we're preferring to use iSCSI - which may require an OS change unfortunately, unless we find another means. Can someone here make a recommendation. To keep FreeBSD at the front-end, we'd have to go fibre, but that's a little out of my experience, and I've been told there are issues with multiple connections to a FC share (or something of that nature). _F Michael Joyner wrote: > NFS EXPORTS must be configured manually per ip per uid > > so if you have 15 UIDS you need to map ownership on files via NFS to > say 5 workstations you have to do 15*5 configurations via a webform. > > will not talk Windows 2003 AD > > I have 3 here (bought before my time), and absolutely hate them. > > Forrest Aldrich wrote: > >> Care to qualify that statement? (ie: back it up with useful >> information, and not rhetoric ;-)) >> >> >> >> >> Michael Joyner wrote: >> >>>> I'd be curious of performance stats you may have experience with on >>>> this scenario. We could could also get a NAS-type device that >>>> isn't as high-end as >>>> Netapp (Snap Appliance?). >>>> >>> >>> Snap Servers are *EVIL* >>> Run Away! >> >> >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?415C3904.8030004>