<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23318"></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Hi again,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 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 class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 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 class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 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 class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>thanks a lot,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=344055408-04052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 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 class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>Von:</B> rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com] <B>Im Auftrag von </B>Grzegorz Witkowski<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Montag, 30. April 2012 20:15<BR><B>An:</B> rhelv6-list@redhat.com<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">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">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></BODY></HTML>