Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 07:34:17 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disk loss Message-ID: <1413808457.2828604.181041145.4121AB54@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <65CC3330-E22F-4253-918E-72CA9B004A81@sarenet.es> References: <000001cfe3ca$8d242950$a76c7bf0$@ezwind.net> <5436CF13.4080509@citrix.com> <000101cfe3f1$91407da0$b3c178e0$@ezwind.net> <65CC3330-E22F-4253-918E-72CA9B004A81@sarenet.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 02:09, Egoitz Aurrekoetxea wrote: > Good morning, >=20 > I would recommend you using NFS instead of iSCSI. It=E2=80=99s far more b= etter to > handle the connection to disk arrays (the FreeNAS in this situation) > through a mature and stable protocol like NFS > and not something manipulating blocks directly. I would advise you to > rely the responsibility of serving the SR to NFS.=20 >=20 You can't have redundant paths with NFS (in FreeBSD), though. I'm not so sure everyone would agree that NFS is mature and stable, either :-) My personal experience with building a Xen+FreeBSD cluster concluded that NFS was far too slow and unreliable, and a properly configured iSCSI with multiple paths and proper alignment was extremely fast.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1413808457.2828604.181041145.4121AB54>