Right, try multipathing with nfs :) 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 >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
