Re: Direct NFS and ZS3
From: Mladen Gogala <mgogala_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 03:49:07 -0400
Message-ID: <5549C773.5070602_at_yahoo.com>
On 05/05/2015 12:16 PM, Fernando Jose Andrade wrote:
> I don’t know if this configuration is worst than DNFS, I have read
> around the web that DNFS beats iSCSI
That depends on whether you will utilize iSCSI HBA's like QLogic 4K or not. With HBA, I find the iSCSI performance better than NFS. I have no numbers to share, only an impression. Also, here is a nice little comparative write-up:
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 03:49:07 -0400
Message-ID: <5549C773.5070602_at_yahoo.com>
On 05/05/2015 12:16 PM, Fernando Jose Andrade wrote:
> I don’t know if this configuration is worst than DNFS, I have read
> around the web that DNFS beats iSCSI
That depends on whether you will utilize iSCSI HBA's like QLogic 4K or not. With HBA, I find the iSCSI performance better than NFS. I have no numbers to share, only an impression. Also, here is a nice little comparative write-up:
As far as snapshots are considered, ZFS does CoW snapshot, which will very quickly kill the performance of your appliance. So, since ZS3 already offers file system and is not LUN based, like EMC or NetApp, I would go with NFS which doesn't require additional pieces of HW (iSCSI HBA) but would refrain from doing snapshots. As for the choice between the kernel NFS and dNFS, I usually go with kernel, which is more standard to configure.
-- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA http://mgogala.freehostia.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed May 06 2015 - 09:49:07 CEST