Using NFS over iSCSI for VMware access

[rajdeepsengupta]

We have recently moved some of our application server to Vmware ESX server. For the datastore we have used Netapp filer. I have NFs license on Netapp system, so I was wondering about what we should use to access the datastore, I mean whether we should use iSCSI or NFS. It seems majority of people uses iSCSI and even Vmware engineer suggested that, while Netapp saya that on NFS the performance is as good as iSCSI, and in some cases it is better. Also I knew that Netapp NFS access is really very stable and perfornace freidnly, so I have choosed NFS to access the datastore. The additional advantage which I have got is that I donot need any snaprestore or any other license to restore the backup. Becuase in NFS, we have all the snapshot copies accessible directly under .snpshot directory, so we have created scripts which takes snapshot every 15 nins for very critical servers, so anytime if I have an issue, I can get the last 15min snapshot copy, and make it a production copy in a mater of seconds.

Now my question is have any customer have done some real testing to prove that NFS access is atleast equivalne tot iSCSI performance if not better. Becuase in times to come, the load on our application server will increase only, so I want to make sure that my decision was correct.

[nicholas4704]

I'm not Markus but...

IMHO of course

I don't like 2050... it is almost the same as FAS2020 (same CPU, more memory and 1 expansion slot), but more expensive.

FAS3140 is a piece of hardware that really kicks ass. If you can afford it go for it. With 3140 you can solve almost every business need.

Talking about 2050A I would plan what do I need in the future. SATA or FC, iSCSI or FCP, etc

You can mix internal SATA with external multipathed FC without addon card or vice versa. So if 20 SATA disks are not enough then...

Netapp equipment is pretty reliable, so ethernet vifs (trunks) are not obligatory.

Ussually the whole switch dies rather one port or NIC on Netapp.

Anyway in case of disaster you can switch cluster.

Another way to go could be to trunk 2 interfaces and run 2 VLANs there. You'll get redundancy and separate traffic on 2 interfaces. But I've never tried this configuration.

So, I would go for 3140. For 2050 If trunk is a business need, then go for additional NIC and for SATA...

For SATA...  if you need additional SATA shelf, buy another FAS2020 bundle with SATA, it should be available soon! Damn cost effective.

Nick

[mheimberg]

Hi Radek

You point directly to the week points of the FAS2050!

In fact it is even worse: there are only 2 onboard GBE! So you have to take a carefull decision wether you would like

- more IP connectivity for redundancy or separation of traffic

- an additional FC HBA for FC SAN or tape device

- or an SCSI-HBA for tape

We bypass the limitations of the system by separating services to more systems: eg. a 2050HA one head serving NFS, other head serving iscsi, then a second 2050HA one head for CIFS, and one standby....is still cheaper than 3140 but gives more systems to maintain...there is no golden rule, because every customer as is own needs and budgets, sorry.

BTW: this is OT, maybe you could open another thread?

Regards

Markus