Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can
use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs
integration, so better performance. Plus you can serve multiple
clients, etc.
The only reason to use iSCSI is when you don't have a choice, IMO. You
should only use iSCSI with a single initiator at any point in time
unless you have some higher level contention management in place.
- Garrett
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 22:20 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
> >
> > On a related note - all other things being equal, is there any reason
> > to choose NFS over ISCI, or vice-versa? I'm currently looking at this
>
> iscsi and NFS are completely different technologies. If you use iscsi, then
> all the initiators (clients) are the things which format and control the
> filesystem. So the limitations of the filesystem are determined by
> whichever clustering filesystem you've chosen to implement. It probably
> won't do snapshots and so forth. Although the ZFS filesystem could make a
> snapshot, it wouldn't be automatically mounted or made available without the
> clients doing explicit mounts...
>
> With NFS, the filesystem is formatted and controlled by the server. Both
> WAFL and ZFS do some pretty good things with snapshotting, and making
> snapshots available to users without any effort.
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
