Rudi Ahlers wrote > Simple, it's only a NAS device, and not really a file server / web > server / data base server as well. The purposes I needed is to replace > SMB on the network, and iSCSI seemed like a good alternative. The > server in question is a dev server, which I thought would be > beneficial to setup as an iSCSI server as well and connect other > servers to it's storage, and thus consolidate the storage on it :) > whoa. ISCSI is *NOT* a NAS/SMB replacement. ISCSI is a SAN replacement, a low budget (and lower performance) alternative to Fibrechannel.. a given iSCSI target volume can only be accessed by a single initiator (client) at a time, unless you're running some sort of cluster file system that supports shared block devices.