disk loss

[Jay West]

Egoitz wrote...
> I would recommend you using NFS instead of iSCSI. It’s far more better 
> to handle the connection to disk arrays (the FreeNAS in this 
> situation) through a mature and stable protocol like NFS and not 
> something manipulating blocks directly. I would advise you to rely the 
> responsibility of serving the SR to NFS.

To which Mark Felder replied:
You can't have redundant paths with NFS (in FreeBSD), though. I'm not so sure everyone would agree that NFS is mature and stable, either :-)

My personal experience with building a Xen+FreeBSD cluster concluded that NFS was far too slow and unreliable, and a properly configured iSCSI with multiple paths and proper alignment was extremely fast.
---------------
NFS mature & stable (?? Subjective), but more importantly - it's not the right choice for a SAN from a speed nor technology perspective.
Mark, along with probably most of the production infrastructure implementors - is (subjectively) correct :)

That all being said, I'd wager that other than specific use cases (ex. Shared content for a webserver farm, which on freebsd pretty much HAS to be NFS because FreeBSD as of yet does not support any cluster aware filesystems)... most people are using iSCSI for that type of common use case in a large environment. It'd behoove freebsd to see why there is an issue (where there is none with Windows or Linux Guests).

J