Well you're limited to 2GB on the host side regardless of how you configure the NAS ports. Aggregating the ports on the NAS will make the most efficient use of throughput to handle IO from multiple hosts.
Out of curiousity, are you planning to attach the NAS to your network or direct connect the hosts to the NAS? Your questions lead me to believe you were considering the latter. - Sean On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:04 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > Im just unclear on one thing, hoping someone can enlighten me- as im > new to iscsi > if i vlan or group the 4 nics, but the server only has 2- (current setup ) > > Doesn't all the traffic have to go through the servers 2 NICs? > Essentially reducing everything down to 2Gb? > > Or am i totally off with that thought process ? > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:26:28 -0800 > To: [email protected] > > No reason. Best practice would be to isolate the iSCSI traffic on a > separate VLAN and configure the group address. I would imagine some type of > port aggregation is supported by the NAS (LACP) so configure that on your > switch for all 4 ports. I prefer to use at least one dedicated interface on > the host side for iSCSI. You can configure the initiator to communicate via > that interface. Also, if supported by the NAS and your switch, jumbo frames > will provide better performance. > > If you can't isolate on a separate VLAN, still create the port group on > your switch for the 4 ports. > > - Sean > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:48 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > > yes. should I then group/cluster 2 NICs for each server ? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:45:00 -0800 > To: [email protected] > > Do you ever plan on allocating storage to other servers? > > - Sean > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:18 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > > ok, but if I group/cluster the 4x 1GB NICs, but the server only has 2x 1GB > NICs , isn't that like trying to put 4 cars on a 2 lane street ? limiting > the bandwidth at 2GB? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:44:34 +0000 > > To the iscsi, I’m not familiar with Synology, but does it have a “group > IP”, AKA cluster IP, that you always access and works across all four > NICs? If so, then you will likely use that group IP as your target. If it > supports MPIO, you could then connect from both server NICs. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:07 AM > *To:* NT > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi > > > > Hi all, > > Just got the 8 bay synology in, I Have 5 drives in raid10 with a hot spare > (total usable 12TB) > > I see that I have the Option for Block-level or File level LUNS, I see > that the file level has more options (thin provisioning among others) > > This NAS will only house data (will not run VM's off them , not yet at > least) a large portion of the will be media (Video footage) > > Q1. Does anyone recommend or advise one format (Block-Level File-Level) > over the other? > > Q2. Second question may seem dumb but I have never used iscsi before so > bear with me & forgive my ignorance > > The Synology has 4x 1GB nic ports, the Hyper V server (w2012) only has 2x > 1GB ports, as this will be an iscsi target am I correct in thinking that > unless my server gets 2 more NIC cards, there will be no benefit to using > the 4 NICs on the Synology? > > My thought is (assuming the above is accurate) would be to create 2 LUNS , > one for iscsi target, using 2 NICs, and second one for direct access to > Synology using the other 2 NICs. > > TIA > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > >
