I use iSCSI on our own SAN that uses drbd to replicate synchronously to another node. We chose iSCSI because it creates 0% load on the SAN CPU and has a low memory footprint. NFS is very popular because it allows for thin provisioning. I benchmarked both, and while IO was about the same, the CPUs on my SAN got bound during high I/O on NFS, which then became a bottleneck.
If you are looking for a commercial SAN OS, Open-E is a good one. Great guys and good support. We have about 60 VMs right now. We use Seagate Constellation 2TB SATA drives, with 240 GB SSD caching drives via an LSI 92608i RAID card. Nik Nik Martin On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Kirk Jantzer <kirk.jant...@gmail.com>wrote: > For my testing, because of available resources, I chose local storage. > However, shared storage (like GlusterFS or the like) is appealing. What are > you using? Why did you chose what you're using? How many instances are you > running? etc. > Thanks!! >
