From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 20 13:54:29 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44C61B4C; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ezwind.net (bobby.ezwind.net [199.188.211.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE5999E; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jayPC by ezwind.net (MDaemon PRO v9.6.5) with ESMTP id 20-md50000166867.msg; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:54:09 -0500 X-Spam-Processed: ezwind.net, Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:54:09 -0500 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled) X-Authenticated-Sender: jwest@ezwind.net X-MDRemoteIP: 97.91.122.42 X-Return-Path: prvs=1370823ff3=jwest@ezwind.net X-Envelope-From: jwest@ezwind.net From: "Jay West" To: "'Mark Felder'" , References: <000001cfe3ca$8d242950$a76c7bf0$@ezwind.net> <5436CF13.4080509@citrix.com> <000101cfe3f1$91407da0$b3c178e0$@ezwind.net> <65CC3330-E22F-4253-918E-72CA9B004A81@sarenet.es> <1413808457.2828604.181041145.4121AB54@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1413808457.2828604.181041145.4121AB54@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: RE: disk loss Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:01:30 -0500 Message-ID: <000901cfec6e$5a15f5a0$0e41e0e0$@ezwind.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLZQaRIeWHWrqmNu5N4SPLKldtZ2QLBV7crAp5Pg98Cig4q9QHtqe+omdec8uA= Content-Language: en-us X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:54:29 -0000 Egoitz wrote... > I would recommend you using NFS instead of iSCSI. It=E2=80=99s far = more better=20 > to handle the connection to disk arrays (the FreeNAS in this=20 > situation) through a mature and stable protocol like NFS and not=20 > something manipulating blocks directly. I would advise you to rely the = > responsibility of serving the SR to NFS. To which Mark Felder replied: You can't have redundant paths with NFS (in FreeBSD), though. I'm not so = sure everyone would agree that NFS is mature and stable, either :-) My personal experience with building a Xen+FreeBSD cluster concluded = that NFS was far too slow and unreliable, and a properly configured = iSCSI with multiple paths and proper alignment was extremely fast. --------------- NFS mature & stable (?? Subjective), but more importantly - it's not the = right choice for a SAN from a speed nor technology perspective. Mark, along with probably most of the production infrastructure = implementors - is (subjectively) correct :) That all being said, I'd wager that other than specific use cases (ex. = Shared content for a webserver farm, which on freebsd pretty much HAS to = be NFS because FreeBSD as of yet does not support any cluster aware = filesystems)... most people are using iSCSI for that type of common use = case in a large environment. It'd behoove freebsd to see why there is an = issue (where there is none with Windows or Linux Guests). J