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

[Grzegorz Witkowski]

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.
The best answer though would be: build in a lab both and test if you can.
Get baselines and compare.
 On May 4, 2012 10:00 a.m., "Masopust, Christian" <
christian.masopust at siemens.com> wrote:

> **
> 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> 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
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rhelv6-list mailing list
> 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/20120504/53a37b5d/attachment.htm>