Avatar of Albert Widjaja
Albert Widjaja
Flag for Australia asked on

NFS or Samba fileshare to store large number of files from Windows server ?

Hi All,

Can anyone here suggest, which type of LUN or file share is better to store a large number of files (~2-3 million) of recorded voice & scanned documents in iSCSI NAS?

I'm considering between NFS share or Samba since the application server is running Windows, then I will use Robocopy to migrate files into the file share for 5 years archival.

Thanks in advance.
* NASStorageWindows OSStorage Hardware* Samba

Avatar of undefined
Last Comment
Albert Widjaja

8/22/2022 - Mon
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Chris

Log in or sign up to see answer
Become an EE member today7-DAY FREE TRIAL
Members can start a 7-Day Free trial then enjoy unlimited access to the platform
Sign up - Free for 7 days
or
Learn why we charge membership fees
We get it - no one likes a content blocker. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content.
Not exactly the question you had in mind?
Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions.
ask a question
Albert Widjaja

ASKER
Hi Chris,

I need some storage location so that I can migrate off millions of smallish (1-2 MB each) files to this location, the size at the moment is about 1.7 TB yearly that I need to migrate off from the VM.

What's the better way to do it especially when I'm doing the Robocopy script.

I'm wondering between iSCSI LUN and NFS shared folder.
Chris

Really they are going to operate almost identically.

NFS is really nothing more then a sharing protocol. Much the same way and Windows File Shares, only on Linux/Unix. (Windows even has the capability to create NFS shares too, through the installation of a Role.)
Add NFS as Role
iSCSI is an IP based networking standard commonly used to attach storage to, and facilitate data transfer.
The protocol allows clients (initiators) to send SCSI commands to storage (targets)

Data is transferred block-level with iSCSI, and file-level with NFS, but really the limiting factor with both will be the speed of the network connections.

So to answer you question, between those two options, there isn't really a better way, assuming the network speed is the same on both. Now if you've segregated your iSCSI traffic on to a different network (say, 10gb or 40gb) network, then create a LUN, and map it to the host.. Data access would be way faster..
Albert Widjaja

ASKER
Ok so if the LUN is on NFS share I cannot use Robocopy to retain the file permission ?

But it is simpler to create.
This is the best money I have ever spent. I cannot not tell you how many times these folks have saved my bacon. I learn so much from the contributors.
rwheeler23
SOLUTION
Chris

Log in or sign up to see answer
Become an EE member today7-DAY FREE TRIAL
Members can start a 7-Day Free trial then enjoy unlimited access to the platform
Sign up - Free for 7 days
or
Learn why we charge membership fees
We get it - no one likes a content blocker. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content.
Not exactly the question you had in mind?
Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions.
ask a question
Albert Widjaja

ASKER
Yes I have QNAP NAS, but somehow I got confused with all of the various type of iSCSI LUN, image based LUN, Storage Pool, RAID group and NFS/CIFS share.

Is there any diagram or picture for that ?
Chris

Albert Widjaja

ASKER
Chris,

So in this case, which one is faster in terms of throughput for transferring large file ?

NFS or iSCSI given the same gigabit ethernet.
Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week.
Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more.
SOLUTION
Log in to continue reading
Log In
Sign up - Free for 7 days
Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week.
Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more.
Albert Widjaja

ASKER
Thanks !