I actually prefer nfs for right now. We had an issue with iscsi where we lost some data and were unable to recover it due to solaris not being able to read propriatory vmfs. -- HUGE
David Stahl Systems Administrator 718 233 9164 / F 718 625 5157 www.hugeinc.com <http://www.hugeinc.com> > From: Scott Meilicke <no-re...@opensolaris.org> > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:47:26 PDT > To: <zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org> > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my! > > My testing with 2008.11 iSCSI vs NFS was that iSCSI was about 2x faster. I > used a 3 stripe 5 disk raidz (15 1.5TB sata disks). I just used the default > zil, no SSD or similar to make NFS faster. > > I think (don't quote me) that ESX can only mount 64 iSCSI targets, so you > aren't much better off. But, COMSTAR (2009.06) exports a single iSCSI target > with multiple LUNs, so that gets around the limitation. I could be all wet on > this one, however, so look into it before taking my word. > > Obviously iSCSI and NFS are quite different at the storage level, and I > actually like NFS for the flexibility over iSCSI (quotas, reservations, etc.) > > -Scott > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
