In our experience, NFS has been much easier to operate than iSCSI. Many thinks they understand iSCSI but it's not easy to get iSCSI + MPIO + multiple VDIs on the same LUN often makes for a operations nightmare.
We haven't done straight NFS vs iSCSI performance comparisons but there are papers done in the academia. Most of them shows with the right versions, NFS performance is similar to iSCSI on raw bytes basis however is significantly slower on dealing with meta data such inode manipulation. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Somesh Naidu [mailto:somesh.na...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:37 AM > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: iSCSI or NFS > > iSCSI does have performance benefits over NFS. On the other hand NFS may > seem better in terms of administration and data manipulation directly on the > backend. > > So it really depends on the requirements. > > Regards, > Somesh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Melnik [mailto:v.mel...@uplink.ua] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:01 PM > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Subject: iSCSI or NFS > > Good day! > > > > What will you recommend to use as primary storage based on Linux server? > iSCSI or NFS? > > > > Am I right that NFS will be too slow for keeping VM-images? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > -- > > Vladimir Melnik > > UPLINK: <http://uplink.ua/> http://uplink.ua/ > > Call me: +380 44 583-5-583 *9913 > > Call me: +380 50 357-87-22 > > Skype me: v_melnik > > > > Move IT-infrastructure to the cloud to make it secure, reliable and much > more efficient: <http://tucha.uplink.ua/> http://tucha.uplink.ua/. > >
