Re: Reiserfs with Samba vs NetApp Filer

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Philippe Gramoullé wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:48:34 +0800
>"darren" <teodarren@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>  |  Hi all,
>  |  
>  |  I was just wondering if I should spend $$ (my company's of cos) on a
>  |  NetApp filer...
>  |  
>  |  OR
>  |  
>  |  I just get one of the Dell 3650 doing nothing in the corner with RAID5
>  |  and run Samba as a fileserver?
>  |  
>  |  Anyone got any benchmarks to compare the two?
>  |  
>  |  Is NetApp as good as its advertised?
>
>We switched from NetApp to DELL ( PowerVault 210S ) mainly because of the $$ :o)
>
>NetApp are really good but really expensive as well.So it depend how much value
>you give to your data.
>
I would say that WAFL is an absolutely superb filesystem for the purpose 
of RAID NFS fileserving.  Reiser4 may give it some serious competition 
after some time has passed and we have time for such things as carefully 
benchmarking NFS, etc., but WAFL is a great filesystem for NFS RAID as 
it is right now.  That said, mp3.com saved $22 million dollars by using 
Linux+reiserfs instead of Netapps and Veritas.  They may be good, but 
reiser3 is cheaper.  A lot cheaper.  Do the math, and you'll buy Linux 
instead I think.;-)

Nobody has done reiser3 vs. WAFL benchmarks.

>
>Netapp as well have tons of features that  linux boxes +PV210S can't do :Clustering
>volume copy, out out the box snapshots,etc..
>
Linux has snapshots if you use lvm, but it is true that  Netapp makes a 
good product.

>
>  |  
>  |  Any comments on this setup is welcomed
>
>Now i think DELL realease their 220S with 14 disks in a shelf so that would have the bang
>for your bucks. On the otherside, NetApp comes with a very nice , proprietary , OS that's quite
>simple to use.
>
>So best price/performance => DELL
>If you have unvaluable data => NetApp (+ backup :o)
>
>  |  
>  |  Regards
>  |  Darren
>  |  
>
>
>Philippe.
>
>
>  
>