From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: adfas asd <chimera_god@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: NAS Remote Side of a Mirror
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <541099.71712.qm@web38806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <c268e4660910100721k206a0bdfn7421d0c101d01921@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <c268e4660910100721k206a0bdfn7421d0c101d01921@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Thanks for the reference.

Of course I'll use iptables to ensure a connection only from the remote SAN to the HTPC.  I'd set up a tunnel, but that's likely to impact performance too much, especially with a 1.2GHz Atom.


--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Drew <drew.kay@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Drew <drew.kay@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: NAS Remote Side of a Mirror
> To: "adfas asd" <chimera_god@yahoo.com>
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 7:21 AM
> > Why do I say that?  Because
> they -are- bloatware, and an unnecessary fat layer in the
> system, with all the potential for error and security breach
> that implies.  iSCSI is the way, in the 21st century.
> 
> Actually, iSCSI is far from secure. Google "iscsi security"
> and the
> first link that comes up is a pdf from a recent BlackHat
> convention.
> Give that a good read before you claim NFS & samba are
> bigger security
> risks then iSCSI.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Drew
> 
> "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be
> understood."
> --Marie Curie
>