Has anyone here ran performance comparisons between NFS and iSCSI when using network storage for KVM based guests. Also which have people found to be easier for managing live migrates etc.
Steve
I think iSCSI is easier to implement and is certainly fast, but I'm unclear about the number of iSCSI clients that can access a volume (iSCSI target) at the same time. So, I use it with only one client at a time.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Steven Ellis Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:55 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: [CentOS-virt] Choices for shared network storage, NFS vs iSCSI
Has anyone here ran performance comparisons between NFS and iSCSI when using network storage for KVM based guests. Also which have people found to be easier for managing live migrates etc.
Steve
-- Steven Ellis - Bulletin.Net Inc - http://www.bulletin.net _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On 05/19/2010 09:30 AM, compdoc wrote:
I think iSCSI is easier to implement and is certainly fast, but I'm unclear about the number of iSCSI clients that can access a volume (iSCSI target) at the same time. So, I use it with only one client at a time.
iSCSI does allow multiple initiators to access a target simultaneously. Of course, the initiator's OS needs to handle the access properly via cluster-aware filesystem (VMFS, GFS2, etc) or locking mechanisms to avoid data corruption. Additionally, the target implementation may require support for certain SCSI reservation protocols to handle certain clustering implementations.
-
compdoc -
David Hollis -
Steven Ellis