Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:01:30 -0500
From:      "Jay West" <>
To:        "'Mark Felder'" <>, <>
Subject:   RE: disk loss
Message-ID:  <000901cfec6e$5a15f5a0$0e41e0e0$>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <000001cfe3ca$8d242950$a76c7bf0$> <> <000101cfe3f1$91407da0$b3c178e0$> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
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).


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <$5a15f5a0$0e41e0e0$>