Right, try multipathing with nfs :)
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