[rhelv6-list] Your opinion regarding NFS vs. iSCSI

[Masopust, Christian]

Hi again,

thanks for all your answers and discussions, but it drove away a little from my original question :)
which was: what do you favour: iSCSI or NFS based storage for a database?  any experiences
in differences regarding performance when running a database on an iSCSI- or NFS-based storage?

thanks a lot,
christian

________________________________
Von: rhelv6-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces at redhat.com] Im Auftrag von Grzegorz Witkowski
Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2012 20:15
An: rhelv6-list at redhat.com
Betreff: Re: [rhelv6-list] Your opinion regarding NFS vs. iSCSI


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.
There are many factors involved. You cannot simply ask "iscsi or fc?"

On Apr 30, 2012 4:01 p.m., "Jussi Silvennoinen" <jussi_rhel6 at silvennoinen.net<mailto:jussi_rhel6 at silvennoinen.net>> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm going to plan the setup of a database-server (MySQL) and now a
discussion started about
how the storage should be connected. Some favour iSCSI,
others NFS (V4).

What's your opinion? Where are advantages / disadvantages?
Which solution
would promise
most performance?

Curious, SAN is not in your list at all. Why?
How important is your service availability to you?

Hi Jussi,

it's also in discussion :) And sure, the service IS important, database
will be for mailbox-servers (Zarafa).

Currently we're focusing on iSCSI vs. NFS as we don't have FC-equipment
but already have 10Gbit ethernet..

I've gotten in to my flame retardant gear so here goes.

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.

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.

Whatever the transport technology is based on, ethernet, FC or snails on steroids, if it has multiple independent fabrics, I'm willing to listen.
Otherwise, I'll pass.

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.

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.



--

 Jussi
_______________________________________________
rhelv6-list mailing list
rhelv6-list at redhat.com<mailto:rhelv6-list at redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhelv6-list/attachments/20120504/53ff3e3b/attachment.htm>