View Single Post
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th May 2022
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freezr View Post
What are my concerns (based on lack of knowledge):
  • FFS looks for me very few reliable
  • FFS and OpenBSD are generally slow
  • Samba implementation on OpenBSD is flaky (?)
  • Softraid mirror is unreliable in production (?)
  • Softraid mirror will slow down further your I/O (?)
  • OpenBSD is unreliable on a SD card (?)
  • Samba is harder to configure on OpenBSD (?)
In order:
  1. OpenBSD's FFS (and the more recent FFS2) have a very long history, dating back to the Unix File System (UFS) as their antecedent. I consider it a highly reliable filesystem, but it lacks some of the features of more modern filesystem implementations such as journal logs, automatic replication, snapshots, etc.
  2. OpenBSD is not a performance-focused OS, it is an OS focused on security, reliability, and availability. I run FFS2 filesystems on SSD and I/O performance has not been a significant bottleneck for any of my workloads. You will be able to form your own opinions after you have some experience with the OS.
  3. I ran Samba many years ago on OpenBSD/i386, and did not have any "flaky" operational issues at the time. I do not have any recent experience with it, however.
  4. I've been running softraid(4) systems since its inception in 2007, and began first with a RAID1 discipline to replace a production RAIDframe server. I experience a drive failure in the first year or two and recall being able to swap drives and rebuild the array without any operational issues. More recently I use softraid(4) with the CRYPTO discipline and have never had an issue. Among the available disciplines, only RAID5 is not recommended for production use. (Correction on RAID5, per the OpenBSD FAQ: RAID5 cannot be used for boot on any architecture. It is currently only possible to boot from RAID1 and CRYPTO volumes on i386, amd64, arm64, and sparc64.)
  5. Any RAID1 implementation -- by definition -- doubles your write I/O requirements. Reads, however, are split between devices on the array, which may improve read operational performance. OpenBSD's softraid(4) RAID1 discipline allows the admin to provision more than 2 devices in the array, which may provide additional benefits for availability or for operational management.
  6. A drive sector is a drive sector. There's nothing "unreliable" about OpenBSD's writes and reads of any mass storage device compared to any other OS's writes and reads. If you are unable to trust your media for reads or writes, your selection of OS won't improve the outcome.
  7. This Samba complaint may be related to your "flaky" concern. I would point you to the file /usr/local/share/doc/pkg-readmes/samba for OpenBSD-specific provisioning. This file is available to you once you install the samba package. Or, you can review the pkg-readme file from the OpenBSD Ports tree: https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blo...kg/README-main
Quote:
Basically I would install the OS on the SD (which I may mount in RO mode most of the time) and create a softraid mirror with the 2 WD Nas Spin Drive. Between Ubuntu vs OpenBSD I think the reply is obvious...
Mounting filesystems read-only will cause you administrative and operational headaches, and is unnecessary with any solid state device that can conduct wear-leveling, which I believe to include every SD card ever manufactured. I recommend you avoid doing this.

Last edited by jggimi; 8th May 2022 at 11:55 AM. Reason: added link to the samba pkg-readme, and correcte RAID5 comment.
Reply With Quote