[9fans] Problem with 2ed File Server

[9fans] Problem with 2ed File Server

[Jean Mehat]

The kernel file server for the second edition on sparc machines seems
to assume that r4 is clear when booting. This assertion if false when
the kernel is booted from the disk via the netbsd loader (but true when
booting from network). Adding a
        u = 0;
before the first call to qlock cures the problem.

BTW, what would you consider as a reasonnable PC to be used as a file
server for a few people?
        Which SCSI card (is the better)?
        Which 100 Mbps card?
        What's a reasonnable memory size?
	What main board for a file server?

--
Jean Mehat, universite de Paris 8 Vincennes a Saint Denis,
jm@ai.univ-paris8.fr, (33) 1 4940 6403, (33) 1 4940 6783 (fax)

Re: [9fans] Problem with 2ed File Server

[peter huang]

On a different note on file server.  What is needed to construct a SAN
(storage area network) file server?  It seems to be the file server had the
notion of SAN before SAN ever become a buzz word.  However, due to current
complexity with the file server,  I think a SAN based file server would be
much easier for average.

-peter

Re: [9fans] Problem with 2ed File Server

[okamoto]

As Jim answered for a big network, I'll add a smaller one. ☺

>        Which SCSI card (is the better)?

Tekram DC-390F is very fast and easy to attach to the new file
server.  This card has both narrow and wide SCSI interface,
and I use both for three scsi disks.  Two for main filesystem
with interleaving each other, and one for other filesystem.

I have older version's file server here, too which use Adaptec
1542B and three scsi narrow(of course☺) diskc.  The speed
difference is remarkable.  Yes, indeed very remarkable.

>        What's a reasonnable memory size?
>	What main board for a file server?

The new has 64MB and the older has 32MB.
The main board???, probably Asus for older and nameless
Twaiwanese one for the new with AMD PR200 (which is
recognized wrong as 400MHz P54C something, but is working
fine).

If I have more user on this system, I want to increase memories.
However, up to now, this is working very fine for us.

Kenji

Re: [9fans] Problem with 2ed File Server

[jmk]

	>BTW, what would you consider as a reasonnable PC to be used as a file
	>server for a few people?
	>        Which SCSI card (is the better)?
	>        Which 100 Mbps card?
	>        What's a reasonnable memory size?
	>	What main board for a file server?

These are all good questions and I can't answer any of them.

As has been hinted at before, I hope to do some re-engineering on the
fileserver kernel and this will hopefully also yield some insight into
configuration.

Our main fileserver has been through two (non-media) upgrades in 10 years.
The original hardware was a 2-processor SGI Power Series (25MHz MIPS R3000)
with 128MB and a handful of, what were for the time, big SCSI drives for the
cache in front of a 350GB SONY WORM jukebox.

The current hardware is, except for the 1.2TB HP MO jukebox, about 5 years
old:
	200MHz Pentium on a Gigabyte GA-586DX motherboard
	128MB memory
	Buslogic BT-956D SCSI controller for the cache/tmp discs)
	Buslogic BT-946 SCSI controller for the MO jukebox
	6x 9GB SCSI discs for cache
	6x 9GB SCSI discs for scratch (not backed up to MO)
	1x 9GB SCSI disc unused
	Digital DE500 Fast Ethernet controller

This is clearly old and crufty. I would hope to push this in the direction
of
	much faster, multiple processors
	much more memory
	more SCSI controllers (Symbios)
	faster, bigger SCSI discs
	ATA discs
	Gigabit ethernet to a switch

With these components we could tune the configuration for the best balance
of CPU/memory/disc/network. I'd be happy to discuss options.

--jim

P.S. If I had to buy today I'd buy a Symbios-based SCSI controller and
any of the 3 Fast Ethernet controllers currently supported in the distribution,
Digital 2114x, Intel 82557 and 3Com.