Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:08:13AM -0500, Louis Guillaume wrote:
>   | Chuck Swiger wrote:
>   | >You ought to be looking towards NAS or SAN platform solutions from 
>   | >Auspex, EMC, NetApp, maybe Apple's new Xsan, which involve products 
>   | >intended for that kind of requirement.
>   | >
>   | 
>   | And I certainly would look to this type of platform/solution. But the 
>   | way I understand SANs is that these devices provide Logical Units for 
>   | use by connected servers. If we connected a file server, we would still 
>   | have to build a filesystem using one or more LUNs on the SAN.
> 
> NetApp, Auspex, and some of EMC's products are NAS; they manage the
> storage & file-systems locally to the device (e.g, WAFL on NetApp) and
> export those file system(s) via NFS or CIFS.
> 
> In my opinion, a good NAS implementation is more useful than mounting
> SAN (block oriented) disk on a UNIX box and running a volume manager
> and local UNIX file system and the exporting that via NFS or CIFS
> (the latter usually with Samba).
> 
> Of course, cost constraints often mean you haven't got the choice
> of using NAS appliances like NetApp filers.  On the other hand,
> if you're buying a SAN, you've got the money for a NetApp ...

I agree with this, and there are NAS products out there, which would do 
the trick. I've been looking more at SANs and there probably is some 
kind of "NetApp"-like thing or "NAS head" out there that will do the trick.

But getting back to the real question...

I'm still curious about filesystem size limitations for NetBSD.

(let's lower the bar)

Given a 1TB filesystem (I think its "giant"), served up via AFP, CIFS 
and NFS to ~600 simultaneous users from a NetBSD 2.0 server,  what is 
better/more mature/more stable - LFS or FFSv2?

Are there other options for NetBSD? ext3fs? jfs? xfs?

Thanks,

Louis