For a while I’ve been considering that a SATA backplane would really make server work easier. But for an inexpensive server an inexpensive backplane is needed. I decided to look again tonight and see what I could find. I included 3-in-2 (3 3.5” drives in 2 5.25” bays), 4-in-3 (5 3.5” drives in 3 5.25” bays), and 5-in-3 (5 3.5” drives in 3 5.25” bays) models.

I was considering recommending a cheap quad-core server for a client. Here’s what I came up with:

• AMD Phenom 9500 (Agena core, 2.2GHz, Socket AM2+, 95W) ~ $200
• ASUS M3A (Socket AM2+, AMD 770, ATI SB600) ~ $100
• 4GB DDR2 1066 (4x1GB) ~ $200
• 2x WD Caviar RE2 500GB ~ $250
• Total (not including Case. PSU, 2nd Nic, Video Card) ~ $750

I suspect once I pick the rest of the parts I can purchase a quad-core system for less than $1000. Pretty nice.

I was going to write an article about my experience with each of these but for now I just want a handy list to refer to. These first 4 are actively maintained and what I would recommend for consideration.

• Bind - Debian/Ubuntu package: bind9
• MaraDNS - Debian/Ubuntu package: maradns
• NSD - Debian/Ubuntu package: nsd
• PowerDNS - Debian/Ubuntu packages: pdns-*

There are 2 other open source DNS server projects but they are not being maintained and not well packaged in Debian/Ubuntu and thus should be avoided: djbdns and Posadis.

All this reading about filesystems reminded me of a set of articles I read comparing a lot of the new Linux filesystems. The third part is really the most important except for details about how to actually get some of these running:

• Linux filesystems part 3: Comparing the standard filesystems

This roundup covered Ext2, Ext3, XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS for a baseline and then examined ChunkFS, NILFS, btrfs, Ext4, Reiser4, ZFS/FUSE, and ZFS/OpenSolaris. What I think most people don’t realize is that there have been a number of performance improvements in Ext3 in the 2.6 Linux kernel. In the real world tests Ext3 had the best performance of the total time for all tests. Of course, some of the numbers don’t look entirely right to me but the point is that Ext3 does pretty well, and is much faster than it used to be. Through in the fact that it is the most tested and compatible filesystem I think it’s an easy choice for systems. The features that would be nice that Ext3 is lacking are data checksumming and filesystem-level snapshots and, thus, I agree with the author that btrfs is one of the filesystems to watch.

In thinking about using ZFS under either Fuse/Linux or Nexenta/Solaris I think it's important to note why ZFS is of interest compared to the numerous other upcoming filesystems. I think, for me, what is attractive about ZFS are certain aspects of functionality such as checksumming and filesystem-based snapshots as well as the common set of tools for disk maintenance. While MD and LVM are great pieces of software, their tools are not always the best in my opinion. Although mdadm may be a step up from its predecessors it's not what I would consider intuitive. However, this is all theoretical as I have not actually used ZFS yet. And the servers I build and maintain will continue to be MD/LVM/Ext3 for some time I'm sure.

I’ve been excited about Nexenta ever since it was announced. I’m not sure if it can really move me away from Linux but I’m anxious to compare a GNU/Linux system with a GNU/Solaris system, preferably for server use. I’m a fan of the Debian package system and I think using that is the right choice. I’m not sure if the Nexenta folks still have a goal of merging their work into Debian (perhaps it will be Ubuntu now), or if that would even be possible but I like the idea. Anyway, if I can get some free hardware I’d like to try it out. The current release can be downloaded at:

• http://www.nexenta.org/os/Download

• The project is not dead.

Excellent. For the rest of the news (good and bad) read ZFS on FUSE/Linux - Status Update.