Right, try multipathing with nfs :) On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, "Karli Sjöberg" <Karli.Sjoberg@slu.se> wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +0000, Markus Stockhausen wrote:
Von: users-bounces@ovirt.org [users-bounces@ovirt.org]" im Auftrag von "squadra [squadra@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution
Cheers,
Juergen
That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI.
Best regards.
Markus
Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and let that load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with iSCSI as well but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a chance of trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the same time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try iSCSI instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to achieve that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In comparing them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference at all, at least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD.
/K