another point is, that a correct configured multipathing is way more solid when it comes to a single path outage. at the software side, i have seen countless nfs servers which where unresponsive because of lockd issues for example, and only a reboot fixed this since its kernel based.
another contra for me is, that its rather complicated and a 50/50 chance that a nfs failover in a nfs ha setup works without any clients dying. dont get me wrong, nfs is great for small setups. its easy to setup, easy to scale, i use it very widespread for content sharing and homedirs. but i am healed regarding vm images on nfs. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Karli Sjöberg <karli.sjob...@slu.se> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: > > Right, try multipathing with nfs :) > > Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, > sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really > separates iSCSI from NFS. > > What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having > multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big > VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing > using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to > know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about > "when" we´ll hit it... > > /K > > > > > On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, "Karli Sjöberg" <karli.sjob...@slu.se> wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +0000, Markus Stockhausen wrote: > > > > Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org]" im > > Auftrag von "squadra [squa...@gmail.com] > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 > > > > An: users@ovirt.org > > > > Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage > > as VM-Storage? > > > > > > > > better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid > > nfs for vm hosting > > > > Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works > > great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is > > a rocksolid solution > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > That is usually a matter of taste and the available > > environment. > > > The minimal differences in performance usually only show up > > > if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could > > help Sven > > > better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > > > Markus > > > > Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level > > load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and > > let that > > load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with > > iSCSI as well > > but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a > > chance of > > trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the > > same > > time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try > > iSCSI > > instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to > > achieve > > that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In > > comparing > > them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference > > at all, at > > least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD. > > > > /K > > -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users