Can someone enlighten me, why KVM uses iSCSI-LUNs and not the NFS exported container like it is done with vSphere/ESX? Currently, I only see disadvantages, like cumbersome handling of VMs, and no benefits. Of course, it is a data sharing network protocol. Unfortunately I only create snapshots inside the LVM-over-iSCSI in XenCenter. But for better performance on VM, I would suggest to use iSCSI LUN directly mapped as a 'Raw device mapping' in VSphere server. iSCSI updated: 2018-09-14 19:48 A frequent question from customers and partners is whether to utilize NFS or iSCSI as the storage protocol with a Cinder deployment on top of the NetApp FAS product line. substantially less performance then iSCSI due to sync writes and lack of multipathing*. NAS uses the network for accessing the storage usually utilizing protocols such as NFS or iSCSI, unlike SANs, which typically use fiber channel or similar technologies such as Infiniband instead. A server hosting an iSCSI LUN is known as an iSCSI Target. SANs were denounced as being too difficult to deploy and manage, according to NAS zealots, while The primary one is simplicity. NFS is the easiest way to manage virtualization, and I see a lot of success with it. Even if it's a VM. Its 3 nodes and about 30 VMs with an NFS backend which is gluster behind those scenes. Larger datastores. The performance analyzer tests run for 30-60 minutes, and measure writes and reads in MB/sec, and Seeks in seconds. NFS and VA mode is generally limited to 30-60 MB/s (most typically reported numbers), while iSCSI and direct SAN can go as fast as the line speed if the storage allows (with proper iSCSI traffic tuning). We have had some inadvertant network hiccups when the Network Admin had to reconfigure some spanning tree issues. This article isn't really designed to deep-dive into each protocol, but rather provide an architectural overview of each delivery method to assist with designing a new storage implementation. This functionality is intended to allow access to storage not exposed using NFS, iSCSI, or FCP. We've run a prototype server over an iSCSI LUN exported from a Dell Equallogic quite successfully. iSCSI’s Effect on the Eternal NAS vs. If it does, it's a tossup between NFS and advanced iSCSI LUNs. When comparing SAN vs. govmlab #nfsdatastore #nfsstorage #esxi #vmwarestorage #vmfs #iscsi #virtualstorage #iscsidatastore #vmware #vsphere #esxi6. Recently I’ve been working with management to plan to install a new SAN to replace some of our existing SAN storage, but we’ve found a few vendors mention that they prefer NFS based storage over iSCSI based storage. Virt-manager oVirt – The oVirt project is an open virtualization project providing a feature-rich, end to end, server virtualization management system with advanced capabilities for hosts and guests, including high availability, live migration, storage management, system scheduler, and more virt-manager iSCSI Target Server – on server only Multipath-IO iSCSI Initiator. I tested 3 different datastores. Average iSCSI read bandwidth (MB/s) is 7. • NFS (Network File System): A file-level (also called file-I/O) protocol for accessing and potentially sharing data. For direct connection to a server—for true server related storage—iSCSI is the way to go. And you would then manage the user access—via SMB/CIFS or NFS—via the server. Not all filesystems delievered via iSCSI are natively capable of being shared. These backups will always be full backups though. Sections 3, 4, and 5 present our experimental comparison of NFS and iSCSI. ISCSI is considered to share the data between the client and the server. NFS and iSCSI provide fundamentally different data sharing semantics. 8% better than NFS. I just started looking at migrating from NFS to iSCSI on a 40gbe network with jumbo frames. iSCSI, on the other hand, would support a single for each of the volumes. You can de-dupe data on the Netapp SAN, and thus save space, and since the SAN does the work it gives it the appearance that SOME things are faster. A purpose-built, performance-optimized iSCSI storage, like Blockbridge, operates in the microsecond range. In the VM’s Disk Management, you can see the added disk as Storage for VMware – Setting up iSCSI vs NFS (Part 1) John January 15, 2014 Virtualization Nearly any conversation about VMware configuration will include a debate about whether you should use iSCSI or NFS for your storage protocol (none of the Marine Corps gear supports Fibre Channel so I’m not going to go into FCP). To demonstrate, I'll connect a vSphere host to my Drobo B800i server that is an iSCSI-only SAN. Zimbra - NFS vs. On the left pane, we select the Datacenter. An iSCSI initiator may be a HBA or some sort of software. That almost never ever happens with NFS. For Type, select “ NFS ” then click on Next. NFS is 6. Both ESX iSCSI initiator and NFS show good performance (often better) when compared to an HBA (FC or iSCSI) connection to the same storage when testing with a single VM. Unless you really know why to use SAN, stick with NAS (NFS). Cons. #2. 2. It is referred to as Block Server Protocol – similar in lines to SMB. NFS iSCSI Gluster 13. As for iSCSI vs NFS, well, we are moving to Exchange 2013, and it's mentioned in documentation that it is not supported if running on anything but block level. redhat. For example, during the install, go into the expert partitioner. We’ll utilize the most commonly used IPERF and NTTTCP tools to check it twice. I cant speak to proxmox but, personally, given these things I stick with oVirt. Section 2 provides a brief overview of NFS and iSCSI. Pros. 1. block As I mentioned in last week's post, NFS and iSCSI couldn't be much more different, either in their implementation or history. oVirt QOS 1 oVirt QoS Martin Sivák Power savings vs QoS Not in oVirt today Mostly NFS, iSCSI – network based Amazon Affiliate Store ️ https://www. It's cheap, it's easy, it's robust, and Ovirt 4. NFS and iSCSI are pretty much different from each other. Most operating systems do not come with iSCSI initiator software installed. Block level storage sales have gone through the roof as more businesses realize its flexibility. oVirt Hosted Engine architecture Hosts1 Servers Guests Storage ( NFS / iSCSI / FC / GlusterFS ) Hosts2 HA Failover oVirt Engine VM Backend Web App Web Services Web App A VM with an application (oVirt engine) that manages the hosts where is running. If your goal is to save money or for setting up a home lab or dev environment Gluster all the way. 4. Either an iSCSI zvol target or NFS datastore was iSCSI vs. NFS! iSCSI is a pain in the tush. 2 makes setting up a hyperconverged (ie: storage and virts on same in iSCSI as the primary reasons for this performance dif-ference. Deployment Choices: NFS vs. com TECHNOLOGY DETAIL Bes ractice o Re Ha Virtualizatio 4 3 AVOIDING THE MOST COMMON MISTAKES READ AND FOLLOW THE INSTALLATION AND ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTATION As straightforward as the deployment of Red Hat Virtualization is, it is still helpful to read the instal- Deployment Choices: NFS vs. 34. async'll hold lots of your data in RAM and write it nicely to the disks when it has time to. Log into the VMware Web Client. Neither is really better then the other. NFS. 8MB/sec, 961. Some things to consider. 20 Exam Preparation Guide where we’ll learn about the different storage access protocols such as NFS, iSCSI, SAN, etc. FCoE goes to iSCSO. Add NFS datastore (s) to your VMware ESXi host. Which I'm 99% A FreeNAS VM was created on an SATA DOM datastore that is physically in the host. 2016-03. My storage model for the VMs is LVM-over-iSCSI (storage. 3 of VMware 2V0-21. 2016-01-26 02:48 PM. company:storage. 6 Seeks/sec. As far as I could find, this NFS client only supports NFSv3. Dell R420 running TrueNAS Core for NFS/ISCSI. For example this could be files on the disk that have been mapped to it, shared libariries and other memory shared with other processes. com/shop/lawrencesystemspcpickupGear we used on Kit (affiliate Links) ️ https://kit. NAS and NFS. Title: oVirt in a Home Lab And so on. #1. Give the NFS datastore a name, type in the IP of your Synology NAS, and for folder type in the SQL Server on 1Gb iSCSI sucks, though – you’re constrained big time during backups, index rebuilds, table scans, etc. This performance is at the expense of ESX host cpu cycles that should be going to your VM load. Another alternative for storing data externally is using Network Attached Storage (NAS). iSCSI updated: 2021-05-10 14:44 A frequent question from customers and partners is whether to utilize NFS or iSCSI as the storage protocol with a Cinder deployment on top of the NetApp FAS/AFF product line. Hi List, I can't get oVirt 4. I ran a very simple benchmark, and I didn't expect it, but NFSv4 was faster than NFSv3 which was in turn faster than iSCSI (see below Apr 6, 2013. 9% better than NFS. co/lawrencesystemsTry ITProTV 8 Virtualization Management the oVirt way Storage Pool Data (master) Block\NFS\Posix\Local NFS Disk Disk Disk Data Export ISO Disk + OVF ISO + VFD Domain function Domain Type usage Managed by SPM Overview of oVirt storage concepts Ovirt requires shared storage. 2 supports MPIO for both NFS and iSCSI (NFS requires setting up NFS v4 IIRC which I haven't touched so I can't say how well it works). I would say they are about equally as safe, in some situations. 5-1. VMware PSA and load-balancing feature that is enable for the iSCSI, FC & FCoE, not the NFS. Take a virtual machine with large virtual disks and run the NFS server. Iperf is one of the most widely-used tools to measure maximum TCP bandwidth. This guide describes the Red Hat Virtualization Manager Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface. These large sequential operations that can easily saturate a 1Gb pipe, and storage becomes your bottleneck in no time. As data is stored as files, it's easier to shift around and data stores can be easily reprovisioned if needed. iSCSI is entirely different fundamentally. 8. If the storage will be used for both OS and user data, a SAN may be more appropriate than a NAS system as it provides a higher level of availability. iSCSI updated: 2020-10-16 13:26 A frequent question from customers and partners is whether to utilize NFS or iSCSI as the storage protocol with a Cinder deployment on top of the NetApp FAS/AFF product line. Top. NFS v4 can avoid this message exchange for data reads if the server supports file delegation. More than a single initiator can connect to a single iSCSI target, if the target is configured to allow it. Una capa de mapeo a otros protocolos se usa para formar una red: el Protocolo de canal de fibra (FCP), el más prominente, es un mapeo de SCSI sobre el canal de fibra; Canal de fibra sobre Ethernet (FCoE); iSCSI, mapeo de SCSI sobre TCP / IP. ac. May 5, 2003. server using iSCSI via direct (NIC-to-NIC) 10-Gbit LAN (storage server has 2x10-Gbit ports network cards; Proxmox nodes also have 10Gbit LAN NICs). All VMs have been migrated over NFS (live storage migration works great!), but now I need to move also the hosted engine, in order to dismiss the iSCSI storage. In the Configure tab, navigate to the Storage Devices section and scan all disk’s adapters. After the successful scanning, the StarWind device connected to iSCSI will appear in the Storage Devices section. VMFS is quite fragile if you use Thin provisioned VMDKs. file. 2 Less than a minute. FCoE is a pain and studies show that it generally doesn't quite keep up with iSCSI even though iSCSI is more robust. If you use iSCSI make 100% certain you use an advanced file-level iSCSI LUN or BTRFS LUN (if on 6. Live Migration Manages hosts 2 In the past we've used iSCSI for hosts to connect to Freenas because we had 1gb hardware and wanted round-robin etc. I have used and I am using both NFS and iSCSI with ESX. vmdk file – iSCSI datastore. What NFS offers is 2 things. Especially when using iSCSI, the difference is HUGE. NFS has its origins in the UNIX world. Meaning, I have the option of either setting up a share via NFS or SMB or creating a virtual iSCSI drive in which I can connect to. In the VM properties section, connect the StarWind device as RDM Disk. NFS also makes it so you don't need to run VMFS, and thus when you resize the volume it reflects instantly on your datastores. I stuck oVirt in production over a year ago. Network test. A few years ago, it was common to see articles in the trade press hotly debating the respective merits of network-attached storage (NAS) and storage area networks (SANs). Yes, Exchange 2010 doesnt support NFS. 4. Check out either the command vzdump oVirt Hosted Engine architecture Hosts1 Servers Guests Storage ( NFS / iSCSI / FC / GlusterFS ) Hosts2 HA Failover oVirt Engine VM Backend Web App Web Services Web App A VM with an application (oVirt engine) that manages the hosts where is running. Dell R610 running TrueNAS Core for NFS/ISCSI. it will happen then. NFS is dead simple to use and very hard to screw up. luns content none lvm: WWW-hosts NFS average write bandwidth (MB/s) is 61. We also add the IP address of the iSCSI target in the portal. To use VMFS safely you need to think big - as big as VMware suggests. Updated versions of this documentation will be published as new content becomes available. A single powerfailure can render a VMFS-volume unrecoverable. 23% higher while under 64k 100%seq 100%write pattern NFS is NOT faster than iSCSI. VIRT refer to the virtual size of a process - which is the total amount of memory it is using. Jan 14, 2019. And finally, 8k 50/50 Random/seq 70/30 Read/Write. A window appears and we enter the name for the iSCSI drive in ID. Our workload is a mixture of business VMs - AD, file server, Exchange, Vendor App A, etc. Thanks! Update: Found the bug while hunting Bugzilla, looks like it already has a patch. Then I'll connect the same host to my Synology DS211+ server, which offers NFS, iSCSI and other storage protocols. I am running both in two environments, and I find NFS blows iSCSI away. The Equallogic isn't our 'production' SAN, a NetApp FAS 2050 is. 4 oVirt in a Nutshell File Storage Domains NFS Gluster POSIX-Compliant FS Local Block Storage Domains Fibre Channel iSCSI 5. 63. We are going to be migrating our mail server from postfix/courier to Zimbra over the next few months. Let us look at the key differences: Definition: NFS is used to share data among multiple machines within the server. Update 2: Went through the install using the CLI and was able to setup the iSCSI storage Key Difference Between iSCSI vs NFS. Under 64k 100%seq 100%read pattern, iSCSI performance is 17. 08% better than Windows to Windows but 59. 09% better than iSCSI. 84% faster than iSCSI. There are pros and cons and other implication of both. Hi, im using iSCSI for ESXi on my TVS-671, faster responses than NFS TVS-1282T3-i7-64G + 8x WD Red Pro 10TB, 4x Samsung 850 512GB SSD + 2x Samsung 850 M. 2). staniforth@leedsbeckett. vmdk file – NFS datastore. Data is stored directly on the host and only the capacity in use is consumed. “Block-level access to storage” is the one we are after, the one we need to serve to an Instant VM (a VM which runs directly from a data set, in our case directly from backup). DSM 6. Ð Ñ ÐžÐœÑ ÐžÑ +3, Jayme La mayoría de las redes de almacenamiento utilizan el protocolo SCSI para la comunicación entre servidores y dispositivos de disco. Under Inventors click on “Hosts and Clusters”. From the drop-down menu, we select iSCSI. I've a 2 hosts setup with ovirt 4, with a bunch of machines on it. 7% faster than iSCSI in the File Copy from NAS application test. You can use Gluster, iSCSI, NFS, fiberchannel or Ceph (and probably a few other options). eu. It scales per data store much better than iSCSI as well. 82% higher than that of NFS. File vs. Obviously this isn't good for the file system or machine using the device. 3. There are certain operations in oVirt that require exclusive access to the disks, and when working with large volumes this prevents any other operations on that volume for a long time, greatly impacting performance. NAS or iSCSI, it's often a matter of block vs. Since these are results from an unaudited run, we withhold the actual results and instead report normalized throughput for the two systems. Table 6 shows the TPC-C performance and the network message overhead for NFS and iSCSI. It allows centralized management of virtual machines , compute, storage and networking resources, from an easy-to-use web-based front-end with platform independent access. 20% lower than Windows to Windows and 26. 3) NFS performance is horrible I'm using "Client for NFS" that is included in Windows 10. 23% higher while under 64k 100%seq 100%write pattern It is not about NFS vs iSCSI - it is about VMFS vs NFS. This protocol is device-independent in that an NFS command might just request reading the first 80 characters from a file, without knowing the location of the data on the device. This post covers Objective 1. NFS was developed by Sun Microsystems in the early Again, difference is NFS is a filesystem. Mar 2, 2021. iSCSI devices can suffer from complete disconnects if the latency gets too high. Live Migration Manages hosts 2 FC/iSCSI/NFS Shared Storage FC/iSCSI/NFS Linux VMLinux VM Win VMWin VM oVirt Engine Java oVirt Engine Java SDK/CLI python SDK/CLI python R E S T R E S T ADAD IPAIPA Local StorageLocal Storage Guest agentGuest agent Guest agentGuest agent Admin Portal gwt Admin Portal gwt User Portal gwt User Portal gwt PostgresPostgres oVirt High Level And so on. I gave up trying to get the hosted engine deployed and put that on an iscsi volume instead Other protocols, including NFS and iSCSI, are also suitable for deploying VDI infrastructure solutions. Here, Linux to linux performance is 23. Ovirt vs. But not sure about mounting the NFS datastore on VSphere server and creating the VHD file. I wasn't able to enable / force NFSv4 on it. 199 path: /path/data # Add data iSCSI storage domain: - ovirt_storage_domains: name: data_iscsi host: myhost data_center: mydatacenter iscsi Especially when using iSCSI, the difference is HUGE. As shown in the table, there is a marginal difference between NFS v3 and iSCSI. cfg from one of the nodes): iscsi: Storage portal 192. So iSCSI pretty much always wins in the SAN space, but overall NAS (NFS) is better for most people. If you do screw it up chances are the only side effects are that it disconnects or isn't as fast as it could be. NFS is inherently suitable for data sharing, since it enable files to be shared among multiple client machines. SAN Debate. Run the Jetstress tool on the server to verify the performance testing. The NASPT Results show that File Copy to NAS iSCSI is 27. We propose enhancements to NFS to extract these beneﬁts of meta-data caching and update aggrega-tion. all. el8 (running on oVirt Node hosts) to connect to an NFS share on a Synology NAS. 80% better performance. Under 4k 100%random 100%write, iSCSI gives 91. I can perfectly understand it on File-level protocols like NFS, but with iSCSI serving blocks, I can't understand how compression will work. In this post, we’ll identify and discuss the storage access protocols that are used in VMware vSphere 7. To support block transfers, run Fibre Channel (FC), FICON, FCIP, iSCSI. It appears to raise the IO, but I'm not sure how compression works over iSCSI. NFS was developed by Sun Microsystems in the early Deployment Choices: NFS vs. 168. iSCSI supports CHAP for authentication and improving the security. 3. Boot from SAN is possible via the iSCSI not the NFS. 0. 7VMware Tutorial 40 - VMware Dat oVirt QOS 1 oVirt QoS Martin Sivák Power savings vs QoS Not in oVirt today Mostly NFS, iSCSI – network based oVirt Hosted Engine architecture Hosts1 Servers Guests Storage ( NFS / iSCSI / FC / GlusterFS ) Hosts2 HA Failover oVirt Engine VM Backend Web App Web Services Web App A VM with an application (oVirt engine) that manages the hosts where is running. Then we click on Add. I do not do hyperconverged and I dont use a lot of the "features" of oVirt. 72% lower than Windows to Linux. com TECHNOLOGY DETAIL Bes ractice o Re Ha Virtualizatio 4 3 AVOIDING THE MOST COMMON MISTAKES READ AND FOLLOW THE INSTALLATION AND ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTATION As straightforward as the deployment of Red Hat Virtualization is, it is still helpful to read the instal- oVirt supports a broad range of storage backends, including iSCSI, FC, NFS and Gluster. If it doesn't, then NFS all the way. giving backup system (Veeam in my case) access to datastores is more work. Under 64k 100%seq 100%write pattern, NFS on Linux to Linux performs 22. Differences Between NFS and iSCSI. With NFS, the filesystem is managed by the NFS server, in this case, the Storage System and with iSCSI the filesystem is managed by the guest os. Now that we're moving to 10gb we decided to test NFS vs iSCSI and see exactly what came about. 95% lower than Windows to Linux. This guide is generated from documentation comments in the ovirt-engine-api-model code, and is currently partially complete. While VMFS LUNs top out just shy of 2 TB in size, NFS has no such limits -- some arrays go as high as 16 TB. Screwing up SAN (iSCSI) generally means total lose of data or corruption. amazon. 5 Nature always sides with the hidden flaw Disaster Recovery - Murphy's Laws If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then. I started with an old iSCSI unit, then added a new NFS storage server and started moving all VMs. Synology DS1813+ NFS over 1 X Gigabit link (1500MTU): Read 81. Any POSIX-compliant file system used as a storage domain in Red Hat Virtualization must be a clustered file system, such as Global File System 2 (GFS2), and must support sparse files and direct I/O. Regarding backups, PVE can do backups by itself to a storage that has the content type "Backup" set. It is a file-sharing protocol. 23% higher while under 64k 100%seq 100%write pattern 04-16-2008 09:14 AM. Supermicro 5018A-TN4 running oVirt Node 4. VMware vSphere 7: Identify NFS, iSCSI, SAN Storage Access Protocols. 2MB/sec, Write 79. The NASPT Results show similar File Copy to NAS numbers. HD Tune Results – 80 GB (Hard disk 2) . iSCSI vs NFS – Performance and Features. Published: 09 Jan 2007. Figure 1. 59% faster than NFS and File Copy from NAS NFS is 36. Re: ReadyNAS 4220 - NFS vs. SAN Storage protocols - FC vs FCoE vs iSCSI vs NFS vs CIFS A common question when provisioning storage is "which presentation protocol do I use". To run virtualization hosts, our physical virtualization server must support and have nested virtualization enabled (all modern processors are able to do this); remaining are the storage nodes. 2 NVMe SSD in QM2 card, Nvidia GTX1070Ti, 450W Corsair PSU TS-453B-8G + 4x WD Red 6TB + 2x 128GB NVMe SSD in QM2 card for cache KVM iSCSI vs. Another thing that I'm testing now is compression. For file transfers, use NAS with CIFS or NFS. The easiest solution is to put the boot files on a NFS share that is accessible via tftp. For a client to connect to the iSCSI Target you need an iSCSI initiator. Average write bandwidth (MB/s) is 3. In contrast, a block protocol such as iSCSI supports a single client for each volume on the block server. I thought that switching from NFS to iSCSI would provide increase performance for datastores on ESXI. According to IDC, while iSCSI commanded just 3% market share in . Block transfers offer low latency and high performance; mainly for applications that require block transfers. you need VMFS (which can be temperamental) and are constrained by its limits. In the right pane, we select the Storage tab. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Synology DS1813+ iSCSI over 4 x Gigabit links configured in MPIO Round Robin BYTES=8800 NFS/iSCSI - Using NFS Ganesha (this is just a theory but should work) to export your Gluster volumes in a redundant and highly available way> Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov Ð Ð¿ÐµÑ Ñ Ðº, 16 Ð°Ð¿Ñ ÐžÐ» 2021 Ð³. iSCSI CHAP authentication is available in all iSCSI implementations IPsec is available to secure the communication channel VLANs enable logical isolation of storage and data traffic Large iSCSI SANs may be physically isolated from LANs for optimal storage QoS FCP WWN-based access controls for limiting access to storage Fibre Channel isn’t dead – it’s still the dominant storage protocol -- and iSCSI is being implemented at an increasing rate. Before testing, we have to see if our network itself provides the very throughput it should – 1 Gbps. Click to see full answer. It was founded by Red Hat as a community project on which Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is based. VMXNET 3 NICs were used for the VM and MTU was set to 9000 from within ESXi networking and FreeNAS. iSCSI - VMware. Otherwise, NFS is demanding the ReadyNAS to sync the file system before taking on more data. Consideration should be made as to how the overall VDI infrastructure will be deployed. File level storage is still a better option when you just need a place to dump raw files. Yes, you should enable async if you plan to use NFS. In a vSphere environment, connecting to an iSCSI SAN takes more work than connecting to an NFS NAS. Which I'm 99% However, on both a NFS and an iSCSI server, the problem of kernel updates can be tricky. Learn iSCSI (Internet Small Computer Systems Interface) was born in 2003 to provide block-level access to storage devices by carrying SCSI commands over a TCP/IP network. iSCSI. The most predominant difference between iSCSI and NFS is that iSCSI is block level and NFS is file based. If NFS or iSCSI if faster, is something that I cannot say. uk. 313. Right click on your cluster name and select “ New Datastore “. Then in the FreeNAS VM the LSI 3008 HBA was set to passthrough mode so the VM could have full access to the disks. Raw Device Mapping (RDM) feature is not supported by the NFS, but the iSCSI can do. I guess there are many factors that come into play, not just the protocol. First, we log in to the Proxmox web interface. NFS is natively a shared filesystem. Those are pretty minor. In addition, the use of deduplication functionality (for those arrays that support this functionality) is far simpler and easier to use when used with NFS instead of block-based storage. Less risk of data loss. , 01:56:09 Ñ . 1 target iqn. There are strict latency limits on iSCSI, while NFS has far far more lax requirements. By Tom Clark. Key Difference Between iSCSI vs NFS. Live Migration Manages hosts 2 # Examples don't contain auth parameter for simplicity, # look at ovirt_auth module to see how to reuse authentication: # Add data NFS storage domain - ovirt_storage_domains: name: data_nfs host: myhost data_center: mydatacenter nfs: address: 10. Yes, oVirt Engine can run inside a virtual machine. 2 512GB cache, 2x 1TB Samsung 960 Pro M. One of the problems with having a system based on an Performance depends heavily on storage and backup infrastructure, and may vary up to 10 times from environment to environment. 15 oVirt in a Home Lab Thanks for watching my presentation p. When benchmarking NFS vs iSCSI, we can see that during testing under 4k 100%random 100%read patterns the iSCSI performance was 80. NFS offers you the option of sharing your files between multiple client machines. NFS gets rid of the management aspects that are required for iSCSI. Demo next 14. iSCSI is a SCSI-3 protocol delievered via IP. oVirt is a free, open-source virtualization management platform. 88.