[Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?

[squadra]

Right, try multipathing with nfs :)
On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, "Karli Sjöberg" <Karli.Sjoberg at slu.se> wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +0000, Markus Stockhausen wrote:
> > > Von: users-bounces at ovirt.org [users-bounces at ovirt.org]" im Auftrag
> von "squadra [squadra at gmail.com]
> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15
> > > An: users at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140109/7b2b9f94/attachment-0001.html>