If you're presenting via iSCSI, block-level is probably your only option. For the CIFS volume, file-level may have more desirable features.
- Sean > On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:56 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > >
