asked on
ZFS: some pracitical questions
Hi,
I have some practical question on ZFS.
1.Hanccocka mentioned he has NFS + ISCSI running, why is that. Why ISCSI AND NFS?
2.What/how to do to configure ISCSI on the Nexenta (for the ESXi side: no problem)
3.If you add a CIFS-share: won't it impact the performance of the vm's? Or is this neglectable?
4.Does performance of ZFS get better after a while (when cache/logs are built) ...?
5.How many vm's do you have running on a ZFS NAS? I would like to run all my vm's but wonder if it could take it (will cache be more heavily used so it CAN take it or is it just the logic = less = the better performance)?
vm's I would like to run: windows 7 workstation, sql 2008, windows sccm, windows scom, vcenter 5, 2 domain controllers, 2 xenapp-servers, maybe also a windows 2012 and windows 8 as testdrive
=> therefore question 4, I had the impression performance got better after a while, just want to know if I'm over-exhausting zfs running all these vm's (then I would run some on local ssd's in the esx-server) or I would not take advantage of what it's capable of
6.One more thing: what to do with 3 nic's in ZFS, use them all, only use two of them & how to configure then?
Please advise.
J.
I have some practical question on ZFS.
1.Hanccocka mentioned he has NFS + ISCSI running, why is that. Why ISCSI AND NFS?
2.What/how to do to configure ISCSI on the Nexenta (for the ESXi side: no problem)
3.If you add a CIFS-share: won't it impact the performance of the vm's? Or is this neglectable?
4.Does performance of ZFS get better after a while (when cache/logs are built) ...?
5.How many vm's do you have running on a ZFS NAS? I would like to run all my vm's but wonder if it could take it (will cache be more heavily used so it CAN take it or is it just the logic = less = the better performance)?
vm's I would like to run: windows 7 workstation, sql 2008, windows sccm, windows scom, vcenter 5, 2 domain controllers, 2 xenapp-servers, maybe also a windows 2012 and windows 8 as testdrive
=> therefore question 4, I had the impression performance got better after a while, just want to know if I'm over-exhausting zfs running all these vm's (then I would run some on local ssd's in the esx-server) or I would not take advantage of what it's capable of
6.One more thing: what to do with 3 nic's in ZFS, use them all, only use two of them & how to configure then?
Please advise.
J.
VMware
Last Comment
Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
1. again wether you use iSCSI or NFS, it's up to you, Test, see which is better for you. It's not a ZFS SAN question, it's the age old question of NFS versus iSCSI.
2. no problems.
3. we use CIFs.
4 & 5. Yes, performs well for us on NFS.
6. Two NICs is always better than one. But in our tests, we've not been able to saturate a single 1GBe NIC, because of the performance on the server (cpu)
2. no problems.
3. we use CIFs.
4 & 5. Yes, performs well for us on NFS.
6. Two NICs is always better than one. But in our tests, we've not been able to saturate a single 1GBe NIC, because of the performance on the server (cpu)
2.great tutorial thanks!
3.ok, I might consider bringing all my data of my Synology over to ZFS
4. & 5. ?! wow, so performance is only impacted by lack of diskpace, not the amount of vm's?
40 or 50 vm's on 1 ZFS?
6.ok, might not be good option to add extra nic, however if I would add my data to it and backup over network + migrate vm's once and a while to other nas (synology), it might be still good option to add more nics, right?