I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
Among others, I have tried one from LaCie

I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.

NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
seems to be part of the problem.

No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
build my own car.

TIA,

-RFH

On Jul 17, 12:37 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>
> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.
>
> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> build my own car.
>
> TIA,
>
> -RFH


Where I wrote NetBIOS above, I obviously meant CIFS/SMB. Well, having
that protocol wouldn't bother me, but I mostly need an NFS server that
can keep proper track of ownerships and permissions.

The fundamental problem with all the boxes that I have tried is that
they seem to be designed to hold small files and not having to do too
many things concurrently. One of the boxes I returned was working
quite well during a large file transfer, but when I typed "ls -l" from
the Unix side, it froze on me.

Thanks for your kind assistance,

-Ramon

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Jul 17, 12:37 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>
>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>
>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>
>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>> build my own car.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> -RFH
> 
> 
> Where I wrote NetBIOS above, I obviously meant CIFS/SMB. Well, having
> that protocol wouldn't bother me, but I mostly need an NFS server that
> can keep proper track of ownerships and permissions.
> 
> The fundamental problem with all the boxes that I have tried is that
> they seem to be designed to hold small files and not having to do too
> many things concurrently. One of the boxes I returned was working
> quite well during a large file transfer, but when I typed "ls -l" from
> the Unix side, it froze on me.
> 
> Thanks for your kind assistance,
> 
> -Ramon
> 
Just get a scrap PC a copy of linux, and a big disk.

On 2008-07-17, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>
Are these devices advertised as providing NFS?  It's hard to believe 
several different boxes would simply not work.

> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.
>
> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> build my own car.
>
It's your choice, but if you have a spare PC and a hard drive or two, 
setting up an NAS is nothing like building your own car.  Just the 
other day I saw a video about FreeNAS, a BSD distribution made for that 
purpose. The video is at http://revision3.com/systm/freenas/ and 
FreeNAS is at http://www.freenas.org .  On the other hand, if you can't 
get an off-the-shelf NAS box to work...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 12:37 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>>
>>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>>
>>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>>
>>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>>> build my own car.
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>>
>>> -RFH
>>
>>
>> Where I wrote NetBIOS above, I obviously meant CIFS/SMB. Well, having
>> that protocol wouldn't bother me, but I mostly need an NFS server that
>> can keep proper track of ownerships and permissions.
>>
>> The fundamental problem with all the boxes that I have tried is that
>> they seem to be designed to hold small files and not having to do too
>> many things concurrently. One of the boxes I returned was working
>> quite well during a large file transfer, but when I typed "ls -l" from
>> the Unix side, it froze on me.
>>
>> Thanks for your kind assistance,
>>
>> -Ramon
>>
> Just get a scrap PC a copy of linux, and a big disk.
> 

NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.

Bill Marcum wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>
> Are these devices advertised as providing NFS?  It's hard to believe 
> several different boxes would simply not work.
> 
>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>
>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>
>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>> build my own car.
>>
> It's your choice, but if you have a spare PC and a hard drive or two, 
> setting up an NAS is nothing like building your own car.  Just the 
> other day I saw a video about FreeNAS, a BSD distribution made for that 
> purpose. The video is at http://revision3.com/systm/freenas/ and 
> FreeNAS is at http://www.freenas.org .  On the other hand, if you can't 
> get an off-the-shelf NAS box to work...



Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
the kernel?

Here's one way to do it: 
http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html

On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 12:37 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
[deletia]
>>>
>> Just get a scrap PC a copy of linux, and a big disk.
>> 
>
> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.

....as compared to what exactly?

The "big fat Linux PC" gets my vote simply for the number of
disks you can have. I want some form of redundancy and I don't
want to "waste" too much disk to get it.

I would want something with 6 disks minimum, able to stripe the
whole thing RAID5 with a hot spare, GigE and NFS built in.

Anything fit the bill?

Those silly Windows Home Server boxes don't cut it.

I have a system in a desktop case already that is more
impressive than one of those. It's even pretty maintainable
despite the fact that there are no hot swap bays.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
> 
> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
> 
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.

Have you tried any of the Netgear ReadyNAS units, such as the RND2150?
Netgear's specs include NFS, RAID-1, 31dBA noise, ~35W with two SATA
drives, support for USB drives (but not DVD drives or Flash drives),
BitTorrent, HTTP, FTP, photos, ITunes server, etc.  Someone actually tested
the RAID capability of the unit by pulling out the hot-swap drives one at a
time and this one passed -- it kept going without a hitch, it brought
newly-inserted disks up-to-date, didn't hang -- all that good stuff.  Some
other NAS boxes that claimed RAID support the fellow tested didn't pass
that simple test.

I haven't actually used one, but what I've read indicates the Netgear
ReadyNAS series and the QNAP TS-209 Pro rate better with those who have.

A user forum is at http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
from which you may be able to get a more complete opinion.

HTH,
 -WBE

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
> 
> ...as compared to what exactly?

A proper NFS implementation.

> The "big fat Linux PC" gets my vote simply for the number of
> disks you can have. I want some form of redundancy and I don't
> want to "waste" too much disk to get it.

Don't show OS prejudice when there are better alternatives for specific 
tasks.

> I would want something with 6 disks minimum, able to stripe the whole
> thing RAID5 with a hot spare, GigE and NFS built in.
> 
> Anything fit the bill?

Build your own using Solaris Express and ZFS.  Your LVM RAID5 sucks swamp
water compared to a zraid.

http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/

On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Marcum wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>>
>> Are these devices advertised as providing NFS?  It's hard to believe 
>> several different boxes would simply not work.
>> 
>>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>>
>>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>>
>>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>>> build my own car.
>>>
>> It's your choice, but if you have a spare PC and a hard drive or two, 
>> setting up an NAS is nothing like building your own car.  Just the 
>> other day I saw a video about FreeNAS, a BSD distribution made for that 
>> purpose. The video is at http://revision3.com/systm/freenas/ and 
>> FreeNAS is at http://www.freenas.org .  On the other hand, if you can't 
>> get an off-the-shelf NAS box to work...
>
>
>
> Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
> the kernel?
>
> Here's one way to do it: 
> http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html

Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.

I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
keep on hearing about people having similar problems
even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
Solaris x86.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

Thommy M. wrote:
> Bill Marcum wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>>
>> Are these devices advertised as providing NFS?  It's hard to believe 
>> several different boxes would simply not work.
>>
>>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>>
>>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>>
>>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>>> build my own car.
>>>
>> It's your choice, but if you have a spare PC and a hard drive or two, 
>> setting up an NAS is nothing like building your own car.  Just the 
>> other day I saw a video about FreeNAS, a BSD distribution made for 
>> that purpose. The video is at http://revision3.com/systm/freenas/ and 
>> FreeNAS is at http://www.freenas.org .  On the other hand, if you 
>> can't get an off-the-shelf NAS box to work...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
> the kernel?
> 
> Here's one way to do it: 
> http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
Never found NFS to be that fast n Suns, either..mind you gave up on it 
as a realtively bad way to share files a long time ago.

On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
>> 
>> ...as compared to what exactly?
>
> A proper NFS implementation.

Why should I care... really?

>
>> The "big fat Linux PC" gets my vote simply for the number of
>> disks you can have. I want some form of redundancy and I don't
>> want to "waste" too much disk to get it.
>
> Don't show OS prejudice when there are better alternatives for specific 
> tasks.

You aren't doing anything but engaging in abusive rhetoric.

>
>> I would want something with 6 disks minimum, able to stripe the whole
>> thing RAID5 with a hot spare, GigE and NFS built in.
>> 
>> Anything fit the bill?
>
> Build your own using Solaris Express and ZFS.  Your LVM RAID5 sucks swamp
> water compared to a zraid.
>
> http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/

Been there. Done that. Have the SCSA to prove it.

Be careful who you call a "OS bigot".

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
>> the kernel?
>>
>> Here's one way to do it: 
>> http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
> 
> Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.

Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.

> I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
> keep on hearing about people having similar problems
> even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
> Solaris x86.

And we have all been "personally bit" by winmodems, winprinter, the whole
lot of such junk.

On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
>>> the kernel?
>>>
>>> Here's one way to do it: 
>>> http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
>> 
>> Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.
>
> Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.

Oh, is THAT all...

>
>> I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
>> keep on hearing about people having similar problems
>> even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
>> Solaris x86.
>
> And we have all been "personally bit" by winmodems, winprinter, the whole
> lot of such junk.

Except we aren't talking about those.

We're talking about the fact that for most of the lifetime of Solaris 
x86 it was treated like an ugly redheaded stepchild. Not only did 
hardware support suck in a most fundemental way but this lack of 
commitent from Sun trickled down through the software vendors.

BTW, Linux gained support for winmodems a LONG time ago.

This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On Jul 17, 1:21 pm, Bill Marcum <marcumb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> > Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> > Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>
> Are these devices advertised as providing NFS?  It's hard to believe
> several different boxes would simply not work.
>

Some clarifications are in order. I tested some of the mentioned NAS
boxes (LaCie and Buffalo) more than a year ago. I became frustrated by
the state of the art at the time in the sub-$1000 NAS market and
decided to wait.

I am not saying that the boxes didn't work, only that they didn't meet
my expectations in terms of concurrent use, for instance.

Just as I expected, the latest crop of NAS appliances is much better.
I would recommend two:

 - HP Media Vault
 - NetGear EasyNAS

The Solaris roll-your-own tip is great, BTW. If only somebody would
pack it in an appliance box!

Thanks!

-Ramon

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
>>>>the kernel?
>>>>
>>>>Here's one way to do it: 
>>>>http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
>>>
>>>Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.
>>
>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
> 
> 
> Oh, is THAT all...
> 
> 
>>>I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
>>>keep on hearing about people having similar problems
>>>even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
>>>Solaris x86.
>>
>>And we have all been "personally bit" by winmodems, winprinter, the whole
>>lot of such junk.
> 
> 
> Except we aren't talking about those.
> 
> We're talking about the fact that for most of the lifetime of Solaris 
> x86 it was treated like an ugly redheaded stepchild. Not only did 
> hardware support suck in a most fundemental way but this lack of 
> commitent from Sun trickled down through the software vendors.
> 
> BTW, Linux gained support for winmodems a LONG time ago.
> 
> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
> 
Living in the past won't get your task accomplished.  Consider what is
best TODAY.

-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.

You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the cost
of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem with no
longer exists.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:51:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
>>> 
>>> ...as compared to what exactly?
>>
>> A proper NFS implementation.
> 
> Why should I care... really?

Because NFS was the primary consideration of the OP.

>> Don't show OS prejudice when there are better alternatives for specific 
>> tasks.
> 
> You aren't doing anything but engaging in abusive rhetoric.

Abusive?  Hardly.  Perhaps you are abusing yourself.

On 2008-07-17 10:37:43 -0700, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> said:
> 
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
> 
> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
> 
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.
> 
> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> build my own car.

Would you like me to throw a date with a supermodel?  Or if you would
prefer, how about a free Ferrari for as long as you own the NAS?

For $1000 you are simply not going to get an appliance which "works".
It would be possible to build your own for that budget.

-frank

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
[SNIP]
> The Solaris roll-your-own tip is great, BTW. If only somebody would
> pack it in an appliance box!
>
Somebody does!  But I didn't put the information in permanent store!!
Bugger, bugger, bugger.

Now, where did I see it...  In something talking about "OpenStorage",
somewhere...  Can't find it...  (And google just throws up too much.)

Still, someone *has* done it.

	Cheers,
		Gary	B-)

Dave Uhring wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
> 
> You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the cost
> of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem with no
> longer exists.

Oh, I thought he was still around... ;-)

On Jul 17, 11:45=A0pm, Frank Cusack <fcus...@fcusack.com> wrote:
> On 2008-07-17 10:37:43 -0700, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> said:
>
>
>
> > I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> > Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> > Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>
> > I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>
> > NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> > seems to be part of the problem.
>
> > No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> > build my own car.
>
> Would you like me to throw a date with a supermodel? =A0Or if you would
> prefer, how about a free Ferrari for as long as you own the NAS?
>
> For $1000 you are simply not going to get an appliance which "works".
> It would be possible to build your own for that budget.
>
> -frank

On the whole I have to agree with Frank, don't expect too much from a
solution that is targeted at home users and small businesses. You're
likely to attain a bigger bang per buck using a PC, your OS of choice
which could be solaris 10 or some linux distro. There is some
excellent opens source NAS software available here --> http://www.openfiler=
..com.

Good luck.

Thommy M. wrote:
> Dave Uhring wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to
>>> begin with.
>>
>> You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the
>> cost of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem
>> with no longer exists.
>
> Oh, I thought he was still around... ;-)

I thought too, but I guess money is not his major concern anymore 8-) 

In article <1216327827.16063.2@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
	The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> writes:
> Never found NFS to be that fast n Suns, either..mind you gave up on it 
> as a realtively bad way to share files a long time ago.

NFS can drive my disks and Gb ethernet to their theoretical limits
without generating any significant resource loading itself. Difficult
to see how I could require it to run any faster.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article <slrng7vbd2.b0c.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
	JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
> 
> Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.
> 
> I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
> keep on hearing about people having similar problems
> even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
> Solaris x86.

I've probably bought around 5-6 different new white box systems over the
last year without checking the hardware compatibility list, and they've
all just worked, except for one nVidia gigabit NIC, which works fine
on two of the other systems with the same chipset, so that looks like
a BIOS perculiarity. A $5 Gb realtek card solved that problem.

In another case where I did care about getting full performance SATA
support and hotswap, I did seek a system with a motherboard with a
particular nVidia chipset which I know Solaris has specific SATA
drivers for rather than using the generic driver, but for most
purposes, that doesn't matter.

I generally specify nVidia graphics, knowing that nVidia generate
enough business out of Solaris x86 to put special effort into their
Solaris drivers. However, of other graphics cards, the support level
is same as it is on Linux distros, as the same set of drivers are used.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Ramon F Herrera schrieb:
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
> 
> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
> 
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.

For home use, I'd buy a time-capsule ;-)


> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> build my own car.

For business-use, nothing will beat a PC-server with Solaris and 
JBOD-storage. At least nothing that isn't at least 10x as expensive.
E.g.
I've ordered a pair of Vtrak J610sS from Promise + 2*16 1 TB SATA2 disks.
(Apple resells them, too, so spare-parts should be around for some time).
We'll see how it works out compared to 2* MSA 70 (2*25 146 GB SAS)

LVM is nice for simple stuff - but I don't want to manage a mirrored 16 
TB array mirrored between two controllers on two different JOBDs with it.


cheers,
Rainer

On 2008-07-17, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
>>>>>the kernel?
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's one way to do it: 
>>>>>http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
>>>>
>>>>Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.
>>>
>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>> 
>> 
>> Oh, is THAT all...
>> 
>> 
>>>>I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
>>>>keep on hearing about people having similar problems
>>>>even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
>>>>Solaris x86.
>>>
>>>And we have all been "personally bit" by winmodems, winprinter, the whole
>>>lot of such junk.
>> 
>> 
>> Except we aren't talking about those.
>> 
>> We're talking about the fact that for most of the lifetime of Solaris 
>> x86 it was treated like an ugly redheaded stepchild. Not only did 
>> hardware support suck in a most fundemental way but this lack of 
>> commitent from Sun trickled down through the software vendors.
>> 
>> BTW, Linux gained support for winmodems a LONG time ago.
>> 
>> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
>> 
> Living in the past won't get your task accomplished.  Consider what is
> best TODAY.
>

Nice empty rhetoric.

I started looking into this again and low and behold what did 
I quickly find... hardware support complaints.

Besides, this little remark was about the here and now.

>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.

That's such total Deja Vu.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
>
> You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the cost
> of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem with no
> longer exists.

     It probably didn't run on his PC either.

     That's the quintessential problem here.

     Paying $400 for Solaris was bad enough by itself.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:51:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
>>>> 
>>>> ...as compared to what exactly?
>>>
>>> A proper NFS implementation.
>> 
>> Why should I care... really?
>
> Because NFS was the primary consideration of the OP.

That doesn't really tell you much.

So far all you've provided is rhetoric.

Some actual details would be nice.

>
>>> Don't show OS prejudice when there are better alternatives for specific 
>>> tasks.
>> 
>> You aren't doing anything but engaging in abusive rhetoric.
>
> Abusive?  Hardly.  Perhaps you are abusing yourself.
>


-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-07-17, Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
> On 2008-07-17 10:37:43 -0700, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> said:
>> 
>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>> 
>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>> 
>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>> seems to be part of the problem.
>> 
>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>> build my own car.
>
> Would you like me to throw a date with a supermodel?  Or if you would
> prefer, how about a free Ferrari for as long as you own the NAS?
>
> For $1000 you are simply not going to get an appliance which "works".
> It would be possible to build your own for that budget.

    There's no good reason that an unpopulated consumer NAS can't
both be robust and be less than $1000. The fact that any one of us
can pull it off kind of makes it obvious that entities with far
better resources should be able to.

    This is a very new market segment and it will probably take
a bit for things to sort out.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:15:26 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
> 
> That's such total Deja Vu.

I suppose you are just too impoverished to buy an Intel NIC.  My last
purchase of them was for $0.20 USD each.  Would you like for me to send
you one?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
>
> ...as compared to what exactly?
>
> The "big fat Linux PC" gets my vote simply for the number of
> disks you can have. I want some form of redundancy and I don't
> want to "waste" too much disk to get it.
>
> I would want something with 6 disks minimum, able to stripe the
> whole thing RAID5 with a hot spare, GigE and NFS built in.
>
> Anything fit the bill?

I'm guesing you do realize one of the groups this was posted to is
`comp.unix.solaris', right?  Solaris supports SATA or SCSI disks, ZFS
can use those disks for storing your data, GigE is supported in Solaris
and NFS support is very good.

Of course there's something that fits the bill.  It's also easy to get
the OS for free from www.sun.com :)

On 2008-07-18, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:15:26 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>> 
>> That's such total Deja Vu.
>
> I suppose you are just too impoverished to buy an Intel NIC.  My last
> purchase of them was for $0.20 USD each.  Would you like for me to send
> you one?

I'd rather not bother. I might want to use the slot for something else.

On a Unix, not supporting NICs rates right up there with not
supporting the sorts of HD controllers and cdrom controllers
that are likely to be in the target systems.

Like I said: Deja Vu.

-- 

        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-07-18, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0500, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> NFS on Linux? That would be like taking a tractor to a F1 race.
>>
>> ...as compared to what exactly?
>>
>> The "big fat Linux PC" gets my vote simply for the number of
>> disks you can have. I want some form of redundancy and I don't
>> want to "waste" too much disk to get it.
>>
>> I would want something with 6 disks minimum, able to stripe the
>> whole thing RAID5 with a hot spare, GigE and NFS built in.
>>
>> Anything fit the bill?
>
> I'm guesing you do realize one of the groups this was posted to is
> `comp.unix.solaris', right?  Solaris supports SATA or SCSI disks, ZFS

    The yapping Chihuahua kind of gave it away.

> can use those disks for storing your data, GigE is supported in Solaris
> and NFS support is very good.
>
> Of course there's something that fits the bill.  It's also easy to get
> the OS for free from www.sun.com :)
>

    That's not quite the sort of appliance where the sub-thread started out. 
As far as the DIY stuff goes, FreeBSD would probably get my attention before
Solaris did.

-- 

        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On Jul 17, 1:37=A0pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>
> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>
> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
> seems to be part of the problem.
>
> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
> build my own car.
>
> TIA,
>
> -RFH

How about a netapp.com

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2008-07-17, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
>>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:37:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2008-07-17, Thommy M. <eclipse9876543210@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Why not go with the one that knows NFS inside out and also have CIFS in 
>>>>>>the kernel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's one way to do it: 
>>>>>>http://developers.sun.com/openstorage/articles/opensolaris_nas.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Poor x86 device support would be my first guess.
>>>>
>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, is THAT all...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've been personally bit by this in the past and 
>>>>>keep on hearing about people having similar problems
>>>>>even with the "new and improved" and reincarnated 
>>>>>Solaris x86.
>>>>
>>>>And we have all been "personally bit" by winmodems, winprinter, the whole
>>>>lot of such junk.
>>>
>>>
>>>Except we aren't talking about those.
>>>
>>>We're talking about the fact that for most of the lifetime of Solaris 
>>>x86 it was treated like an ugly redheaded stepchild. Not only did 
>>>hardware support suck in a most fundemental way but this lack of 
>>>commitent from Sun trickled down through the software vendors.
>>>
>>>BTW, Linux gained support for winmodems a LONG time ago.
>>>
>>>This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
>>>
>>
>>Living in the past won't get your task accomplished.  Consider what is
>>best TODAY.
>>
> 
> 
> Nice empty rhetoric.
> 
> I started looking into this again and low and behold what did 
> I quickly find... hardware support complaints.

Whiners.

> 
> Besides, this little remark was about the here and now.
> 
> 
>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
> 
> 
> That's such total Deja Vu.
> 


-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
>>
>>You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the cost
>>of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem with no
>>longer exists.
> 
> 
>      It probably didn't run on his PC either.
> 
>      That's the quintessential problem here.
> 
>      Paying $400 for Solaris was bad enough by itself.
> 
It ran well then and it runs better now.

-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2008-07-17, Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 2008-07-17 10:37:43 -0700, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> said:
>>
>>>I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>>Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>>Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>>
>>>I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>>
>>>NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>>>seems to be part of the problem.
>>>
>>>No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>>>build my own car.
>>
>>Would you like me to throw a date with a supermodel?  Or if you would
>>prefer, how about a free Ferrari for as long as you own the NAS?
>>
>>For $1000 you are simply not going to get an appliance which "works".
>>It would be possible to build your own for that budget.
> 
> 
>     There's no good reason that an unpopulated consumer NAS can't
> both be robust and be less than $1000. The fact that any one of us
> can pull it off kind of makes it obvious that entities with far
> better resources should be able to.
> 
>     This is a very new market segment and it will probably take
> a bit for things to sort out.
> 
It's so easy to do on your own the big guys probably worry about where
their value-add will be.

-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Dave Uhring wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:15:26 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>>>On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>>
>>That's such total Deja Vu.
> 
> 
> I suppose you are just too impoverished to buy an Intel NIC.  My last
> purchase of them was for $0.20 USD each.  Would you like for me to send
> you one?
> 
He'll want to negotiate you down on the shipping.

-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

CJT wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-07-17, Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-07-17 10:37:43 -0700, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> said:
>>>
>>>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>>>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>>>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>>>
>>>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>>>
>>>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>>>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>>>> build my own car.
>>>
>>> Would you like me to throw a date with a supermodel?  Or if you would
>>> prefer, how about a free Ferrari for as long as you own the NAS?
>>>
>>> For $1000 you are simply not going to get an appliance which "works".
>>> It would be possible to build your own for that budget.
>>
>>
>>     There's no good reason that an unpopulated consumer NAS can't
>> both be robust and be less than $1000. The fact that any one of us
>> can pull it off kind of makes it obvious that entities with far
>> better resources should be able to.
>>
>>     This is a very new market segment and it will probably take
>> a bit for things to sort out.
>>
> It's so easy to do on your own the big guys probably worry about where
> their value-add will be.
> 

We don't have to tell anyone how easy it is.  Face it; most people don't 
need or want to know.  If you corner them and try to explain, they will 
do almost anything to escape!!!

If you handle it right, you can take two hours to plug in the power cord 
and the Ethernet cable.

On 2008-07-18, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2008-07-18, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:15:26 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>>> 
>>> That's such total Deja Vu.
>>
>> I suppose you are just too impoverished to buy an Intel NIC.  My last
>> purchase of them was for $0.20 USD each.  Would you like for me to send
>> you one?
>
> I'd rather not bother. I might want to use the slot for something else.
>
> On a Unix, not supporting NICs rates right up there with not
> supporting the sorts of HD controllers and cdrom controllers
> that are likely to be in the target systems.
>
> Like I said: Deja Vu.

It was stupid the first time you said it, now it's just boring.

*plonk*


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> writes:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:

[...]

>>     There's no good reason that an unpopulated consumer NAS can't
>> both be robust and be less than $1000. The fact that any one of us
>> can pull it off kind of makes it obvious that entities with far
>> better resources should be able to.
>>
>>     This is a very new market segment and it will probably take
>> a bit for things to sort out.
>>
> It's so easy to do on your own the big guys probably worry about where
> their value-add will be.

Same as it is for domestic ADSL modem/routers.

Sure, I could create something using an old PC, a PCI ADSL card, etc.,
but mine would be big, probably less reliable, probably use more power
and be more noisy.  I could add more features to mine (have it run
djbdns, webserver, etc.), but it'll still be less good in most
respects than what a commercial manufacturer can mass produce.

Same with this category.  NetGear (for example) can produce a neat
~20cm cube which is relatively quiet, relatively power-efficient NAS,
with 4 slots for hot-swappable SATA disks.  Maybe functionally I could
produce such a thing, but I suspect the hot-swappable bit isn't
trivial (and wouldn't fit naturally with a typical PC case), and the
size would be hard.

So I'm betting manufacturers aren't finding it hard to compete with
home-made NAS.

And (for all I care) manufacturers could use OpenSolaris if they
wanted.  I've no idea whether ZFS would offer an advantage in this
space over ext3 or whatever they currently typically use, but it seems
plausible.  No idea why they seem to be mostly using GNU/Linux.  Maybe
OpenSolaris is just a bit too new yet.

Probably the competition (in the home space) is rather with basic
external disks (USB, firewire, maybe eSATA).

In article <511101b3-5a3c-4bfb-870c-ea573ce94d6f@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
jammer  <jameslockie@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 17, 1:37�pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> I have tried several NAS appliances, the latest one being an HP Media
>> Vault Pro mv5150 which will be the fourth box that I have to return.
>> Among others, I have tried one from LaCie
>>
>> I am willing to spend between $400-$1,200.
>>
>> NFS is a requirement. In fact, I wish it came with no NetBIOS, which
>> seems to be part of the problem.
>>
>> No, I am not going to waste my time building one anymore than I would
>> build my own car.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> -RFH
>
>How about a netapp.com

A NetApp StoreVault S300 would be more like $3000, not $1200. But it does a
lot more that NFS

-Raf

On 2008-07-19, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This stupid sort of pretense is what caused Linux to happen to begin with.
>>>
>>>You know nothing of the history of Linux.  It was begun because the cost
>>>of Solaris was too high for a Finnish grad student, a problem with no
>>>longer exists.
>> 
>> 
>>      It probably didn't run on his PC either.
>> 
>>      That's the quintessential problem here.
>> 
>>      Paying $400 for Solaris was bad enough by itself.
>> 
> It ran well then and it runs better now.

   Perhaps it ran well in isolation.

   If you wanted to actually do anything productive with it then you
had problems. I've already mentioned them. These were the sorts of
things that would drive people to Sparc back in the day.

   Not all of us just fell of the turnip truck.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

On 2008-07-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-07-18, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-18, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:15:26 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>> On 2008-07-17, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Bad guess except for motherboard NICs.
>>>> 
>>>> That's such total Deja Vu.
>>>
>>> I suppose you are just too impoverished to buy an Intel NIC.  My last
>>> purchase of them was for $0.20 USD each.  Would you like for me to send
>>> you one?
>>
>> I'd rather not bother. I might want to use the slot for something else.
>>
>> On a Unix, not supporting NICs rates right up there with not
>> supporting the sorts of HD controllers and cdrom controllers
>> that are likely to be in the target systems.
>>
>> Like I said: Deja Vu.
>
> It was stupid the first time you said it, now it's just boring.
>
> *plonk*


    Isn't that just like a mindless Sun Fanboy.

    Don't expose yourself to anything you might fracture your sense
of reality (Sun Superiority). You might develop an alternate personality 
or something.

    Excuse me for thinking that you twits might have some guidance
and experience to share that was actually on point. I guess if it
doesn't have a Sun Microsystems logo on it that you don't know anything
about and you don't want to know anything about it.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------       
                http://www.usenet.com

Note:  comp.os.linux.misc removed from list of newsgroups, since
       my followup has nothing to do with Linux

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>On 2008-07-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>
>>> Like I said: Deja Vu.
>>
>> It was stupid the first time you said it, now it's just boring.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>
>    Isn't that just like a mindless Sun Fanboy.
>
>    Don't expose yourself to anything you might fracture your sense
>of reality (Sun Superiority). You might develop an alternate personality 
>or something.
>
>    Excuse me for thinking that you twits might have some guidance
>and experience to share that was actually on point. I guess if it
>doesn't have a Sun Microsystems logo on it that you don't know anything
>about and you don't want to know anything about it.
>

There are more people here than the ones who just go "*plonk*".  There's
no need to take such a combative stance.

That said, Solaris x86 lacking support for some (or even most) hardware
is actually quite an old story.  Very familiar for many Sun users from
the days when Sun put much less effort into it than they do now.

Also very familiar to those who tried to use Linux not so many years ago,
particularly when it came to sound cards.

So there have been many, many posts just like yours over the years, 99%
of them from bigots of other OSes just trying to flame Solaris.  Your
post looked similar enough to those that I'm sure a few people just lumped
you in with the flamers.


  -Greg
-- 
Do NOT reply via e-mail.
Reply in the newsgroup.

On 2008-07-21, Greg Andrews <gerg@panix.com> wrote:
> Note:  comp.os.linux.misc removed from list of newsgroups, since
>        my followup has nothing to do with Linux
>
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>On 2008-07-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Like I said: Deja Vu.
>>>
>>> It was stupid the first time you said it, now it's just boring.
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>>
>>    Isn't that just like a mindless Sun Fanboy.

PKB.

BTW, I have Windows, Mac and Linux boxes here, as well as Suns. But you're
still a tosser. And HP-UX, AIX, Sun, Red Hat and Suse boxes at work. Thousands
(literally) of them. But yet, you're *still* a tosser.

> So there have been many, many posts just like yours over the years, 99%
> of them from bigots of other OSes just trying to flame Solaris.  Your
> post looked similar enough to those that I'm sure a few people just lumped
> you in with the flamers.

That's because he *is* a flamer. Or a troll. Whichever, he's an idiot child. And
life is too short to wade through the mindless droolings of idiot children.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Bruce Stephens schrieb:
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> writes:
> 
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>     There's no good reason that an unpopulated consumer NAS can't
>>> both be robust and be less than $1000. The fact that any one of us
>>> can pull it off kind of makes it obvious that entities with far
>>> better resources should be able to.
>>>
>>>     This is a very new market segment and it will probably take
>>> a bit for things to sort out.
>>>
>> It's so easy to do on your own the big guys probably worry about where
>> their value-add will be.
> 
> Same as it is for domestic ADSL modem/routers.
> 
> Sure, I could create something using an old PC, a PCI ADSL card, etc.,
> but mine would be big, probably less reliable, probably use more power
> and be more noisy.  I could add more features to mine (have it run
> djbdns, webserver, etc.), but it'll still be less good in most
> respects than what a commercial manufacturer can mass produce.

WRAP/ALiX/Soekris + pfSense.
COTS routers are a bit cheaper - but a lot less flexible.
And: Netgear et.al. stop producing firmware-updates after a year or two.
Doesn't mean there's no market for Netgear, Dlink, Linksys and Zyxel 
anymore, though.

> Same with this category.  NetGear (for example) can produce a neat
> ~20cm cube which is relatively quiet, relatively power-efficient NAS,
> with 4 slots for hot-swappable SATA disks.  Maybe functionally I could
> produce such a thing, but I suspect the hot-swappable bit isn't
> trivial (and wouldn't fit naturally with a typical PC case), and the
> size would be hard.

The problem I have with these "NAS" like devices (I hesitate to write it 
without quotation-marks - it's almost an insult to "real NASes" like 
NetApp):
  - does the RAID actually work?
  - what happens when the controller dies?
  - does the controller maybe take the RAID with him, when it dies?
  - if the controller dies and didn't produce data-corruption (if...) , 
can I put the disks into a new unit and they work?
  - what if the old unit is "G2" and the new unit is "G3", can it 
actually read the disks?

> So I'm betting manufacturers aren't finding it hard to compete with
> home-made NAS.
> 
> And (for all I care) manufacturers could use OpenSolaris if they
> wanted.  I've no idea whether ZFS would offer an advantage in this
> space over ext3 or whatever they currently typically use, but it seems
> plausible.  No idea why they seem to be mostly using GNU/Linux.  Maybe
> OpenSolaris is just a bit too new yet.

ZFS requires a lot of RAM.
AFAIK.

> Probably the competition (in the home space) is rather with basic
> external disks (USB, firewire, maybe eSATA).

I run my own pfSense router (on WRAP and a CF-card) - but I wouldn't 
want to run my own fileserver. Maybe if I could run it with single-digit 
powerconsumption.
But it's still a big maybe.
For a while (freelancing, important customer-data), I was running 
tape-backups....



Rainer

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:48:48 +0000, Rainer Duffner wrote:

> ZFS requires a lot of RAM.
> AFAIK.

Depends on load.  Mine has 1 GB main memory, part of which is shared with
the video controller and it works well:

 NPROC USERNAME  SWAP   RSS MEMORY      TIME  CPU                             
     3 duhring  3624K   11M   1.1%   0:00:00 0.2%
    40 root       81M   81M   8.5%   0:03:03 0.1%
     8 daemon     37M   33M   3.5%   0:00:36 0.0%
     1 noaccess 1332K 3572K   0.4%   0:00:00 0.0%
     2 postfix   900K 3204K   0.3%   0:00:00 0.0%
     1 lp        312K 3572K   0.4%   0:00:06 0.0%
     1 dladm     536K  620K   0.1%   0:00:00 0.0%

Total: 56 processes, 219 lwps, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:21:17 +0000, Greg Andrews wrote:

> Note:  comp.os.linux.misc removed from list of newsgroups, since
>        my followup has nothing to do with Linux
> 
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

>>    Excuse me for thinking that you twits might have some guidance
>>and experience to share that was actually on point. I guess if it
>>doesn't have a Sun Microsystems logo on it that you don't know anything
>>about and you don't want to know anything about it.

If that maroon had bothered to read my original response to the OP he 
would have found an entire set of articles with explicit guidance on how 
to implement a home NAS server using Solaris.

> Also very familiar to those who tried to use Linux not so many years
> ago, particularly when it came to sound cards.

My first Linux install not only had no support for my sound card it had 
no driver for the ATI Rage IIc graphics card.

Strangely enough Solaris 7 did have excellent support for that graphics 
adapter :)