This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:15:41PM +0100, Christian Zoffoli wrote:
> Il 26/01/2011 18:58, Roberto Bifulco ha scritto:
> [cut]
> > from comparisons over the same harware we can be more confident that the
> > results we get are still
> > valid over a similar (clearly not exactly the same!!) configuration.
> tipically tests are quite incomparable.
> If you change disks (type, brand, size, number, raid level) or some
> settings or hw you can obtain very different results.
> IMHO the right way is to find how many IOPS do you need to archive your
> load and then you can choose disk type, raid type, rpm etc
> Tipically, the SAN type (iSCSI, FC, etc) doesn't affect IOPS ...so if
> you need 4000 IOPS of a mixed 70/30 RW you can simply calculate the iron
> you need to archive this.
> Nevertheless, the connection type affects bandwidth between servers and
> storage(s), latency and how many VMs you can put on a single piece of hw.
> In other words, if you have good iron on the disk/controller side you
> can archive for example 100 VMs but if the bottleneck is your connection
> probably you have to reduce the overbooking level.
> iSCSI tipically has a quite big overhead due to the protocol, FC, SAS,
> native infiniband, AoE have very low overhead.

Not true today.

TCP/IP is hardware offloaded nowadays, and many NICs also
have hardware iSCSI offloading.

Also AoE is not really faster than iSCSI, since TCP/IP
is hardware offloaded these days.. iSCSI is more flexible
and more widely supported than AoE.

-- Pasi

Xen-users mailing list