Ok, so i think I'm on the right track then (maybe on the wrong train though LOL) but It's getting A LOT clearer now.
So back to the first part, given my proposed config, is "Block-level LUN" the way to go, or "Regular Files LUN" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:45:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Segmenting the iSCSI from the CIFS traffic is not a bad idea, if the NAS supports multiple LAGs. Dedicating two NICs on the NAS to iSCSI would allow you to configure Jumbo Frames (if supported) for that connectivity only. Dedicating the other two for basic CIFS services means you wouldn't have to extend Jumbo Frame support all the way to the client. To clarify, the goal of creating a VLAN for iSCSI traffic is to segment from all other traffic. Ideally, you would have dedicated NICs for iSCSI while other client/server traffic would traverse their own interface(s). In a perfect, fully redundant world, this would require 4 interfaces on your server. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:30 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: First I want to ideally present a LUN to the W2012 file server, which currently has 2 NIC;s (My thought was to VLAN the server , and the NAS using 2 NIC's on the NAS in LACP ). This now leaves 2 addl NICs on the NAS unused. Second , Create another LUN and create CIFS share/s (for the Multimedia dept) using the remaining 2 NICS also in LACP So now I have redundancy on the iscsi LUN , and on the Media LUN I wont be ,for the time being, going to into Clustering (CSV) on windows Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:49:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi From: [email protected] To: [email protected] It might help if you explain how you plan to use the NAS. Are you going to present LUNs to your Windows server and then use that storage for typical shared file services? If that's the case, then yes, any clients accessing those shares will be limited to the connectivity from the server to the NAS. With that said, it looks like the unit you purchased supports CIFS so you can present shares directly from the device itself. Or like you mentioned, you may have multiple servers attached via iSCSI. Whether you leverage CIFS/iSCSI/etc., I would still recommend you use link aggregation for the NAS ports. - Sean On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:28 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: My thought is/was to connect them to the network. the confusion is from my lack of understanding of iscsi - the way interpreted it is that if i have an iscsi target served by a windows server, then ALL traffic MUST go through the server to access anything in that target (so even if i have 20gb on nas/iscsi target ) im still limiteduby the servers bandwidth. Is that correct? Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:15:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Synology LUNS and iscsi From: [email protected] To: [email protected] 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]] 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
