Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:39:36 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: iSCSI support Message-ID: <438349C8.5020502@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <20051122171702.H9431@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <43824EF0.8090807@endries.org> <20051122002352.G75644@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051122062506.GD13838@yoafrica.com> <20051122121855.J89225@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051122160343.GB6893@dan.emsphone.com> <20051122171702.H9431@chylonia.3miasto.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> Whole devices accessed directly can be a lot faster than NFS, since the >> client doesn't have to constantly ask the NFS server whether the file >> it's currently accessing has changed. > > > any problem to add such option to NFS?? with iSCSI you just CAN't do it. > anyway this asking isn't bandwidth intensive, while adds delays. and > it may affect of transfer speed for ONE process reading one file, but > not multiuser system. Regardless of whether iSCSI is any good, it's a common access method for SAN devices, and from what I've been told, may be the *only* access method. So in heterogenous (read windows dominated) environment where you want to be able to access these things, an iSCSI initiator for FreeBSD can only be a good thing. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?438349C8.5020502>