Depends. What would be your NAS or SAN? RAID level? How many disks? Type of disks? Version of NFS? Multipathing? And so on... However iSCSI may be a better choice - faster for example. You could build a LB/HA cluster with shared file system on iscsi LUN. It may be well scalable too if well designed. Normally I would use NFS for file sharing, ISO storage, etc. The best answer though would be: build in a lab both and test if you can. Get baselines and compare. On May 4, 2012 10:00 a.m., "Masopust, Christian" < [email protected]> wrote:
> ** > 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]> 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] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rhelv6-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list > >
_______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
