[Cialug] Best Local SAN performance

[Jared Brees]

I remember reading some semi-recent articles (within the past 5 years) that went into the nitty-gritty of AFP, SMB, NFS, etc. and all kinda came to the same conclusion:
Unless you're doing something very specific that benefits from a specific protocol, then for new implementations... use SMB. It's supported pretty much everywhere (Windows/Mac/Linux), and even if you aren't cross-platform, its performance (speed and stability) was such that it made a strong contender over the other protocols anyway.

I would not try to use iSCSI for this purpose.
________________________________
From: Cialug <cialug-bounces at cialug.org> on behalf of Andrew Denner <linux-list at upeke.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:24
To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group <cialug at cialug.org>
Subject: Re: [Cialug] Best Local SAN performance

I also know that NFS file locking can be problematic for some applications
like serving pages for apache or using as backing for your database etc.
(Depending on what the dev work is)
Sometimes a local scratch drive is a good idea.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:44 PM kristau <kristau at gmail.com> wrote:

> Taking a huge step back, iSCSI and NFS are not even close to the same
> animals.
>
> iSCSI, along with protocols such as Infiniband and FiberChannel, present
> raw, block storage to their "clients" and are typically set up 1-to-1 where
> a single client or host sees a single set of blocks (LUN or UUID,
> typically). Think "The host sees this storage as a dedicated, internal hard
> disk (even though it may physically be 1 or more kilometers away)." These
> protocols sit "underneath" the filesystem (ext2fs, NTFS, ZFS, etc).
>
> NFS, along with protocols such as SMB and AFP, present multi-client shares
> to the network and are best suited for many-to-1 storage where a lot of
> clients need to see the same files. Think "All these hosts need to see
> these files over the network (be that LAN, WAN, or beyond)." These
> protocols sit "on top of" the filesystem.
>
> There are exceptions to this, but they typically come with fairly
> specialized management solutions which are separate from (read: sit on top
> of) the iSCSI or NFS protocols. For example, vSphere hosts can "share"
> iSCSI targets. vSphere hosts can also use NFS storage. The abstraction
> layer in both cases, however, is the Datastore which provides locking
> "above" the iSCSI or NFS protocol so that the hosts cannot clobber each
> other's data.
>
> It is also common to have an iSCSI "back end" storage array presented by a
> host which shares out to the network at the "front end" via NFS. It all
> boils down to your use case. You may actually end up using both!
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:39 AM L. V. Lammert <lvl at omnitec.net> wrote:
>
> > Going to build anternal "SAN" four our dev machines, .. would anyone have
> > input on which protocol would provide the best performance?
> >
> >         * iSCSI
> >         * NFS
> >         * ??
> >
> > Thanks!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cialug mailing list
> > Cialug at cialug.org
> > https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> >
>
>
> --
> Tired programmer
> Coding late into the night
> The core dump follows
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
_______________________________________________
Cialug mailing list
Cialug at cialug.org
https://www.cialug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cialug