<p>Depends. What would be your NAS or SAN? RAID level? How many disks? Type of disks? Version of NFS? Multipathing? And so on... However iSCSI may be a better choice - faster for example. You could build a LB/HA cluster with shared file system on iscsi LUN. It may be well scalable too if well designed. Normally I would use NFS for file sharing, ISO storage, etc. <br> The best answer though would be: build in a lab both and test if you can. Get baselines and compare.<br> </p> <div class="gmail_quote">On May 4, 2012 10:00 a.m., "Masopust, Christian" <<a href="mailto:christian.masopust@siemens.com">christian.masopust@siemens.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <u></u> <div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Hi again,</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">thanks for all your answers and discussions, but it drove away a little from my original question :)</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">which was: what do you favour: iSCSI or NFS based storage for a database? any experiences</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">in differences regarding performance when running a database on an iSCSI- or NFS-based storage?</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">thanks a lot,</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">christian</font></span></div><br> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#0000ff 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px" dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr" lang="de" align="left"> <hr> <font face="Tahoma"><b>Von:</b> <a href="mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com" target="_blank">rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com" target="_blank">rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com</a>] <b>Im Auftrag von </b>Grzegorz Witkowski<br><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 30. April 2012 20:15<br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:rhelv6-list@redhat.com" target="_blank">rhelv6-list@redhat.com</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [rhelv6-list] Your opinion regarding NFS vs. iSCSI<br></font><br></div> <div></div> <p>It is easy and simple to build fully redundant iscsi network which will deliver and cost much less than FC. Also troubleshooting is pretty easy. iSCSI can be a really good choice if the design is right.<br>There are many factors involved. You cannot simply ask "iscsi or fc?"</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 30, 2012 4:01 p.m., "Jussi Silvennoinen" <<a href="mailto:jussi_rhel6@silvennoinen.net" target="_blank">jussi_rhel6@silvennoinen.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">Hi all,<br> <br>I'm going to plan the setup of a database-server (MySQL) and now a<br>discussion started about<br>how the storage should be connected. Some favour iSCSI,<br></blockquote>others NFS (V4).<br> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>What's your opinion? Where are advantages / disadvantages?<br></blockquote>Which solution<br> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">would promise<br>most performance?<br></blockquote><br>Curious, SAN is not in your list at all. Why?<br>How important is your service availability to you?<br></blockquote><br>Hi Jussi,<br><br>it's also in discussion :) And sure, the service IS important, database<br>will be for mailbox-servers (Zarafa).<br><br>Currently we're focusing on iSCSI vs. NFS as we don't have FC-equipment<br>but already have 10Gbit ethernet..<br></blockquote><br>I've gotten in to my flame retardant gear so here goes.<br><br>Ethernet ís single fabric meaning a single admin error or unexpected end result of plugging new gear to it can bring the whole shebang down. Post-failure less than joyful consistency check marathon is sure to follow.<br><br>For me, that is unacceptable. I'd rather be enjoying my beer at the local pub instead. FC SAN being multi-fabric, you have to try really hard to break everything.<br><br>Whatever the transport technology is based on, ethernet, FC or snails on steroids, if it has multiple independent fabrics, I'm willing to listen.<br>Otherwise, I'll pass.<br><br>I really don't see any need or use for FCoE. I do like the idea of a single communications channel (redundant) but FCoE is a poor excuse for a solution towards that. iSCSI is much simpler protocol but suffers the same single fabric shortcoming.<br><br>Perhaps there are ways out there to do ethernet-based blockstorage reliably that other list members know about, I'd certainly want to know about them.<br><br><br><br>-- <br><br> Jussi<br>_______________________________________________<br>rhelv6-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rhelv6-list@redhat.com" target="_blank">rhelv6-list@redhat.com</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list</a><br> <br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> rhelv6-list mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:rhelv6-list@redhat.com">rhelv6-list@redhat.com</a><br> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list</a><br> <br></blockquote></div>