Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:42:48 -0600 From: iamatt <iamatt@gmail.com> To: Fleuriot Damien <ml@my.gd> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS + iSCSI architecture Message-ID: <CAEeRwNXU2v14PcWKCF=Ap6a1-nwZWumcRML80dhvZHe3=jT12A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <A1618B03-9CA6-46F9-89CA-7DB38B5D6ECA@my.gd> References: <93B2D1C4-8887-45F9-9939-A099AC5E3DA0@todoo.biz> <A1618B03-9CA6-46F9-89CA-7DB38B5D6ECA@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sounds like a major headache. I'd just deploy NetApp with OnTap 8.X or isilon, both BSD based now. On Feb 19, 2013 7:15 PM, "Fleuriot Damien" <ml@my.gd> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:20 PM, "bsd@todoo.biz" <bsd@todoo.biz> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am about to start deploying a large system (about 18 To which can gro= w > up to 36 To) based on a big Intel platform with lot's of fancy features t= o > have turbo boosted platform (ZIL on SSD + system on dongle if I go for > FreeNAS). Since I want to move on quite fast I might decide to use FreeNA= S > in it's latest version. > > > > > > The idea behind all that was to grant 5 or six critical servers access > to the NAS so that they can take advantage of : > > > > 1. space available on the NAS > > > > 2. ability of the NAS to use ZFS and of clients to support this file > system (including snapshots) > > > > 3. Access the server using iSCSI (at least this is what I initially > planned). > > > > 4. Mount part of their filesystem using data stored on the SAN (like > /usr/local/ or other parts of the system). > > > > > > > > The server accessing the data will be of two types : > > > > 1. 2 x Ubuntu server 10.04 LTS > > > > 2. 4 x FreeBSD (mainly 8 and 9) with jail configured > > > > > > I have started reading about iSCSI and potential problems with FreeBSD. > > > > What problems do you mean ? > > > > > So my main questions would be : > > > > > > =E2=80=A2 Should I go for iSCSI ? > > > > Well in all use cases, iscsi should perform faster than NFS. > > > > > =E2=80=A2 Should I rather choose / prefer NFS ? > > > > =E2=80=A2 Should I export a Volume as UFS rather than ZFS (is ZFS suppo= rted as a > target) ? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, when you export a zvol over ISCSI: > - your SAN is the target and presents a block device (the zvol) > - your client is the initiator > - your client attaches to the ISCSI drive and formats it using filesystem > XYZ, be it ext3, ufs or ntfs > > > > > > > > The main idea is stability, redundancy of data and ease of maintenance > (in a headless FreeBSD / Linux world) before anything else ! > > > > ISCSI is a bit harder to setup IMO, however I think it''s more reliable > than NFS, what with its auto retries if it loses the network link to a > device. > > > > > > > > > That's the big pictures, if you have any pointers, advise, they are all > welcome. > > > > > > It is quite late where I leave, so I will reply to posts in 8 to 10 > hours, but I hope to have enough answer(s) to start an interesting thread > (as I think this question is very interesting and not so clearly explaine= d > (at least in my mind))=E2=80=A6 > > > > This is idd a very interesting topic and I hope to see more :) > > > > > > > Thx very much for your infos and feedback. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAEeRwNXU2v14PcWKCF=Ap6a1-nwZWumcRML80dhvZHe3=jT12A>