iSCSI performance / configuration question

[jpaterson]

Hey folks,

 

I've got a question...

 

I considering obtaining a Netgear ReadyDATA system to consolidate our storage needs, as pat of our domain upgrade scheduled this summer. I've done a bit of reading about mounting volumes as iSCSI targets, but I am not sure of the performance impact of my proposed configuration ...

 

Our physical network was upgraded to 10GB last summer, as part of a three year project to rejuvinate and futureproof the system. The ReadyDATA system comes with an option to plug straight in to a 10GB core. However, let's say I have a server on a 1GB connection, with an iSCSI target connection back to the ReadyDATA system. I suppose this might be a stupid and redundant question, but what would the throughput be from a client system accessing data on the iSCSI target (user data, or a profile perhaps) via a SMB connection (\\1gbserver\10gbiscidata\userdata)? My gut says that the throughput would be down at 1GB, but i was wondering if the ISCSI initiatior hands off connection information to in-coming connections, allowing the connection throughput at 10GB?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Jay

 

More info on the ReadyDATA... http://www.netgear.co.uk/business/products/storage/ReadyDATA-family/default.aspx

[DMcCoy]

iscsi just presents a block storage device to the server that connects to it. It will be limited by the 1Gb connection from the server to the storage. If the server has only a single Gb connection, then speed will also be reduced as it needs to access the iscsi and send to the client at the same time.

[jpaterson]

Thanks DMcCoy,

 

Exceptionally helpful

 

Jay

[teejay]

Is it storage for your file shares that you are after, if so then the ReadyData supports CIFS/SMB so you can host your shares directly on it rather than mounting as iSCSI. You'll get much better performance then and you can also utilise the features of ZFS to get some brilliant snapshoting which integrates with Windows previous versions. If you have the budget, I'd consider buying a second one with cheaper disks and without the 10Gb nic, stick it in a different building if possible and replicate the shares across onto it for disaster recovery/high availability.

[jpaterson]

Thanks for your response TeeJay.

 

I had thought about that. However, one of the reasons I wanted to use iSCSI was to work with the data using NTFS permissions / ACLs. I think that the CIFS / SMB shares that you create will only support AD authentication done via the NAS. And even at that, I'm not so sure about support for security principle objects (like CREATOR/OWNER) etc and permission inheritance.

 

Do you have / use a ReadyDATA system? What are your experiences of it?

[SYNACK]

Thanks for your response TeeJay.

 

I had thought about that. However, one of the reasons I wanted to use iSCSI was to work with the data using NTFS permissions / ACLs. I think that the CIFS / SMB shares that you create will only support AD authentication done via the NAS. And even at that, I'm not so sure about support for security principle objects (like CREATOR/OWNER) etc and permission inheritance.

 

Do you have / use a ReadyDATA system? What are your experiences of it?

 

Will it run windows backup, that is usually a good test of it's actual filesystem support. The other thing is its support for smb2 and now smb3 so that you don't have to switch off all the client side security like it's 1998.

 

If your actually using many of the modern features many nas units simply won't cut it as they rely on linux implementations of old protocols.

 

This is why I prefer iscsi block and leaving the complicated stuff to a windows server that understands it all natively, it can end up saving a lot of hassel.

Edited February 17, 2013 by SYNACK

[jpaterson]

Will it run windows backup, that is usually a good test of it's actual filesystem support. The other thing is its support for smb2 and now smb3 so that you don't have to switch off all the client side security like it's 1998.

 

If your actually using many of the modern features many nas units simply won't cut it as they rely on linux implementations of old protocols.

 

This is why I prefer iscsi block and leaving the complicated stuff to a windows server that understands it all natively, it can end up saving a lot of hassel.

 

Hmm not so sure about what version of SMB it supports. Datasheet doesn't help much. As a storage system for our school, it has been on my radar for some time. Our environment (I believe, in terms of server footprint) is too small for a full scale SAN system, but our storage needs are growing too. Also, with us having a 10GB backbone, I feel that it is a good middle-of-the-road solution for us. I am trying to get a 30day eval unit from a preferred supplier, so I'll run some tests with Windows backup, as you suggest SYNACK

Edited February 17, 2013 by jpaterson

[teejay]

Thanks for your response TeeJay.

 

I had thought about that. However, one of the reasons I wanted to use iSCSI was to work with the data using NTFS permissions / ACLs. I think that the CIFS / SMB shares that you create will only support AD authentication done via the NAS. And even at that, I'm not so sure about support for security principle objects (like CREATOR/OWNER) etc and permission inheritance.

 

Do you have / use a ReadyDATA system? What are your experiences of it?

You'll need to check with Netgear, but the Oracle S7000 we used supported all of that. We have moved on from that due to Oracle being Oracle:rolleyes:, but we would get cracking performance out of it and the snapshotting/replication was far superior to Microsoft.

If you go down the iSCSI route, you would want to put a 10Gb in the NAS and one dedicated to the iSCSI network in the server. You could add a second 10gb in the server for your link into the network.

You also really need to look at your disaster recovery/availability when you are specifying your solution as well, putting a lumping great NAS on the network, even if it has redundancy built in can take a long time to fix if things go pear shaped.

[john]

What did you do with your Oracle @teejay?

[teejay]

Still got em, will finish decommissioning them at Easter.