Christian The answer would depend on your environment. I'd suggest to benchmark both iscsi and nfs.
I would probably favor NFS since its easier to maintain and takes care of file locking and can be shared amongst multiple hosts. I'm not saying that you cant do the same with ISCSI, but looking at ease of NFS - I would probably go with NFS. Benchmarking would help you make the final decision. Good luck ilya From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Masopust, Christian Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 4:56 AM To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) discussion mailing-list Subject: Re: [rhelv6-list] Your opinion regarding NFS vs. iSCSI Hi again, thanks for all your answers and discussions, but it drove away a little from my original question :) which was: what do you favour: iSCSI or NFS based storage for a database? any experiences in differences regarding performance when running a database on an iSCSI- or NFS-based storage? thanks a lot, christian ________________________________ Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Grzegorz Witkowski Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2012 20:15 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [rhelv6-list] Your opinion regarding NFS vs. iSCSI It is easy and simple to build fully redundant iscsi network which will deliver and cost much less than FC. Also troubleshooting is pretty easy. iSCSI can be a really good choice if the design is right. There are many factors involved. You cannot simply ask "iscsi or fc?" On Apr 30, 2012 4:01 p.m., "Jussi Silvennoinen" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I'm going to plan the setup of a database-server (MySQL) and now a discussion started about how the storage should be connected. Some favour iSCSI, others NFS (V4). What's your opinion? Where are advantages / disadvantages? Which solution would promise most performance? Curious, SAN is not in your list at all. Why? How important is your service availability to you? Hi Jussi, it's also in discussion :) And sure, the service IS important, database will be for mailbox-servers (Zarafa). Currently we're focusing on iSCSI vs. NFS as we don't have FC-equipment but already have 10Gbit ethernet.. I've gotten in to my flame retardant gear so here goes. Ethernet ís single fabric meaning a single admin error or unexpected end result of plugging new gear to it can bring the whole shebang down. Post-failure less than joyful consistency check marathon is sure to follow. For me, that is unacceptable. I'd rather be enjoying my beer at the local pub instead. FC SAN being multi-fabric, you have to try really hard to break everything. Whatever the transport technology is based on, ethernet, FC or snails on steroids, if it has multiple independent fabrics, I'm willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll pass. I really don't see any need or use for FCoE. I do like the idea of a single communications channel (redundant) but FCoE is a poor excuse for a solution towards that. iSCSI is much simpler protocol but suffers the same single fabric shortcoming. Perhaps there are ways out there to do ethernet-based blockstorage reliably that other list members know about, I'd certainly want to know about them. -- Jussi _______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
_______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
