Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LinkStation_General] Re: Mount TeraStation to LinkStation

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Ilnseher
    ... yes, that is _somewhat_ true. however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs: UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs. with smbfs, you
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      bill fumerola wrote:
      >
      > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
      > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
      > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
      >
      > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp
      > server as a file system. no nfs required.
      >






      yes, that is _somewhat_ true.

      however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
      UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.

      with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids / gids /
      whatever.

      i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.



      >
      > > They indicate the unit is 1GB (network) friendly - it isn't - the
      > > unit can't read / write fast enough to push the data thru the NIC at
      > > this rate.
      >
      > you're never gonna push a full gigabit with that device though. it's
      > provided so that 100Mb isn't the limit. it will, however, negotiate a
      > gigabit link on a gigabit switch. that's all it means. the rest is highly
      > dependent on drive speed, cpu speed, raid algorithms, etc.
      >
      > remember also that by adding more programs (rpc.mountd, nfsd, etc) the
      > cpu is doing more work and more memory is being allocated. you may be
      > bringing down the performance by running so many processes.
      >
      > > Just one falsehood after another . . .
      >
      > just one misunderstanding after another. if you don't understand whats
      > at work with unix system administration/performance, you might not want
      > to play with the underlying operating system. the terastation is not a
      > computing powerhouse. like most embedded systems, careful tuning is
      > required.
      >
      > if you want to peg a gigabit port with nfs, netapp, emc, et al make fine,
      > fine products. don't have thousands of dollars to spend? just put together
      > a freebsd or linux machine with a bunch of fast sata drives and a gigabit
      > nic.
      >
      > you get what you pay for.
      >
      > -- bill
      >
      >
    • bill fumerola
      ... somewhat true? can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes. can osx mount the terastation s ftp service as a file system? yes. is enabling
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
        > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
        > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't until
        > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
        > >
        > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount an ftp
        > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
        >
        > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.

        somewhat true?

        can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
        can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
        is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.

        looks like what i said is entirely true.

        sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
        desireable in some environments too.

        > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
        > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
        >
        > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids / gids /
        > whatever.
        >
        > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.

        the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they each
        have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it saying
        that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and put in
        NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely desires to
        be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.

        - bill
      • -
        Although put politely bill your comments are without merit. In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit - Bufallo advertises their product as having
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Although put politely bill your comments are without merit.

          In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit -

          Bufallo advertises their product as having NFS - yet it does not.

          Additionally your viewpoint that when you add additional modules
          creating load on the embeded unit causes performance degradation on
          the surface makes sense - the ability to calibrate to a 1GB link is
          pointless if the throughput does not take advantage of it.

          It would be like building a tank with a single horse power engine -
          it is still a tank - but a paper weight tank.

          Unfortunately although your statements a valid - that does not make
          them applicable nor of merit to the actual condition(s).

          The most amusing part of this is - the LinkStation which was the
          reason I needed NFS - has the NFS client installed.

          Finally - the performance issues were evident prior to NFS using
          SMB - so I remain on the hilltop shouting this TeraStation is a POS.


          --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, bill fumerola
          <billf@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
          > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
          > > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't
          until
          > > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
          > > >
          > > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount
          an ftp
          > > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
          > >
          > > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.
          >
          > somewhat true?
          >
          > can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
          > can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
          > is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.
          >
          > looks like what i said is entirely true.
          >
          > sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
          > desireable in some environments too.
          >
          > > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
          > > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
          > >
          > > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids /
          gids /
          > > whatever.
          > >
          > > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.
          >
          > the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they
          each
          > have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it
          saying
          > that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and
          put in
          > NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely
          desires to
          > be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.
          >
          > - bill
          >
        • Brian Waite
          ... Where do you get the advertised NFS support? Looking at the datasheets for TS and TS Pro, I see the following protocols: TCP/IP, SMB,FTP, UPS. I don t know
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Saturday 24 June 2006 5:13 pm, - wrote:
            > Although put politely bill your comments are without merit.
            >
            > In fact that was MY point from my statements to wit -
            >
            > Bufallo advertises their product as having NFS - yet it does not.
            >
            Where do you get the advertised NFS support? Looking at the datasheets for TS
            and TS Pro, I see the following protocols: TCP/IP, SMB,FTP, UPS. I don't know
            where you got NFS but if you get your purchasing info from developer
            websites, be prepared to do leg work to get there.

            Refernces:
            http://buffalotech.com/documents/pdf/TeraStation-Pro_DS.pdf
            http://buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=133&categoryid=25
            > Additionally your viewpoint that when you add additional modules
            > creating load on the embeded unit causes performance degradation on
            > the surface makes sense - the ability to calibrate to a 1GB link is
            > pointless if the throughput does not take advantage of it.
            >
            > It would be like building a tank with a single horse power engine -
            > it is still a tank - but a paper weight tank.
            >
            > Unfortunately although your statements a valid - that does not make
            > them applicable nor of merit to the actual condition(s).
            >
            > The most amusing part of this is - the LinkStation which was the
            > reason I needed NFS - has the NFS client installed.
            >
            I think you amde an assumption about the TS that is proven untrue.

            > Finally - the performance issues were evident prior to NFS using
            > SMB - so I remain on the hilltop shouting this TeraStation is a POS.
            >
            >
            > --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, bill fumerola
            >
            > <billf@...> wrote:
            > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Thomas Ilnseher wrote:
            > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:46:49PM -0000, - wrote:
            > > > > > Buffalo indicates the unit is Unix / Linux compat - it isn't
            >
            > until
            >
            > > > > > you hack and put in NFS - but that does get you there.
            > > > >
            > > > > freebsd/linux/osx/etc can mount it using smbfs. osx can mount
            >
            > an ftp
            >
            > > > > server as a file system. no nfs required.
            > > >
            > > > yes, that is _somewhat_ true.
            > >
            > > somewhat true?
            > >
            > > can freebsd/linux/osx mount a terastation using smbfs? yes.
            > > can osx mount the terastation's ftp service as a file system? yes.
            > > is enabling nfs required to access files from a unix client? no.
            > >
            > > looks like what i said is entirely true.
            > >
            > > sure, nfs may be _desireable_ in some environments. openafs may be
            > > desireable in some environments too.
            > >
            > > > however nfs has some important advantages over using smbfs:
            > > > UID/GID/perissions are also exported over nfs.
            > > >
            > > > with smbfs, you have to find some mappings to get useful uids /
            >
            > gids /
            >
            > > > whatever.
            > > >
            > > > i don`t know it's possible to export symlinks over smbfs either.
            > >
            > > the point wasn't to debate nfs v. cifs v. afs v. coda etc. they
            >
            > each
            >
            > > have their advantages and disadvantages. the point is that it
            >
            > saying
            >
            > > that the terastation "isn't [unix compatible] until you hack and
            >
            > put in
            >
            > > NFS" is inaccurate. if NFS is a feature the community widely
            >
            > desires to
            >
            > > be able to enable: ask buffalo to add that option to their image.
            > >
            > > - bill
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.