Any thoughts or suggestions?
While I'm not all that comfortable using a terminal, the short time I've spent with OpenSolaris has been surprisingly easy and fun. However, the biggest problem I have with OpenSolaris is the lack of any (free) distro which focuses in on OS + ZFS as a NAS/Fileserver solution. There's stuff like NexentaStor, but it's way too expensive for a home user. So, unfortunately, I don't think there are any GUI's available that make it easy to administer an OS box remotely. i.e., a nice little browser interface.
Since this fileserver is going to be predominantly used by someone who is more comfortable with a GUI, do you think I'm better off just sitting on my hands until OSX Server 10.6 is released? It's supposed to have fully implemented ZFS capabilities (read/write/create), whereas 10.5 only has read.
As an aside, am i focusing too much on ZFS? I really just got hooked on it after I read up on it a few months ago, and it struck me as a really creative and superior FS... does it deserve that much credit? Or would I be just as happy using some plain old hardware raid (or something similar)? My goal is to have a fast, redundant fileserver on one set of drives (one storage pool, if we're talking zfs) and a smaller set of drives (2nd storage pool) to use for backing up the most important data on the first set.
Cheers!
While I'm not all that comfortable using a terminal, the short time I've spent with OpenSolaris has been surprisingly easy and fun. However, the biggest problem I have with OpenSolaris is the lack of any (free) distro which focuses in on OS + ZFS as a NAS/Fileserver solution. There's stuff like NexentaStor, but it's way too expensive for a home user. So, unfortunately, I don't think there are any GUI's available that make it easy to administer an OS box remotely. i.e., a nice little browser interface.
Since this fileserver is going to be predominantly used by someone who is more comfortable with a GUI, do you think I'm better off just sitting on my hands until OSX Server 10.6 is released? It's supposed to have fully implemented ZFS capabilities (read/write/create), whereas 10.5 only has read.
As an aside, am i focusing too much on ZFS? I really just got hooked on it after I read up on it a few months ago, and it struck me as a really creative and superior FS... does it deserve that much credit? Or would I be just as happy using some plain old hardware raid (or something similar)? My goal is to have a fast, redundant fileserver on one set of drives (one storage pool, if we're talking zfs) and a smaller set of drives (2nd storage pool) to use for backing up the most important data on the first set.
Cheers!