From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 16:47:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848EB16A4CE for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:47:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from forrie.com (forrie.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.45.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2600143D58 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:47:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from forrie@forrie.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (i-99.forrie.net. [192.168.1.99]) by forrie.com with ESMTP id i8UGl79I022738; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:47:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from forrie@forrie.com) Message-ID: <415C3904.8030004@forrie.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:49:08 -0400 From: Forrest Aldrich User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040928) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Joyner References: <415A4BB3.3070107@forrie.com> <415BF47F.6070209@vbservices.net> <415C31CB.2070407@forrie.com> <415C37B6.7050503@vbservices.net> In-Reply-To: <415C37B6.7050503@vbservices.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.0(snapshot 20010925) (forrie.ne.client2.attbi.com) X-MailScanner-LocalNet: Found to be clean cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of iSCSI X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:47:17 -0000 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! >> >> >>