- GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS MAC OS X
- GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS MAC OS
- GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS PRO
# zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V 200g vault/iscsi
# zpool create vault raidz2 c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 c4t4d0 # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/test/testfile bs=1048576k count=4 Gigabit with MTU of 1500 (performance should be better with jumbo frames).
GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS MAC OS
For iSCSI test, created a 200 GB zvol shared as iSCSI target (formatted as Mac OS Extended Journaled) 4 x 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda SATA II in ZFS zpools (see below) Sun Ultra 24 Workstation, 8 GB of RAM, 2.2 GHz quad core iMac 24 (Intel), 2 GB of RAM, 2.3 GHz dual core With fully functional ZFS expected in Snow Leopard Server, I thought I'd do some performance testing using a few different zpool configurations and post the results. Perhaps something about the server's configuration is inhibiting its NFS performance?
I just did quick test using the default mount options against a single-disk NFS server and it showed 5x the performance you report. In my experience, AFP and NFS should be in about the same ballpark. These are actually all the default values (TCP too), so I'm not sure how you got different numbers with these changes. However, as the man page notes, use of this is discouraged because of the risk of data loss. This option must beĮnabled in order for the async mount option to be honoredīecause (accidental) use of the async mount option may result inĭata loss if the server crashes. That line won't make any difference if you're not using "-o async" as described in the nfs.conf(5) man page:Īllow the use of the -o async mount option. I'd be especially interested to know whether anyone has found a situation where Mac clients using NFS has an advantage.
GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS MAC OS X
If you have any suggestions for performance tuning Mac OS X 10.5.5 clients with any of these protocols (beyond using jumbo frames), please share your results here. I'll be getting a Sun Ultra 64 Workstation in soon and retrying the tests (and adding NFSv4). NFS was a huge disappointment but it could have been limitations of the server settings that could not have been changed because it was an appliance. I was surprised to see how close AFP performance came to iSCSI. Note: I tried forcing TCP as well as used an rsize and wsize that doubled what I had above.
Here's what I put in /etc/nfs.conf to tune the NFS performance: Time dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/test/testfile bs=1048576k count=4 Here are the results of running the following command from the Terminal (where test is the name of the appropriately mounted volume on the NAS) on a gigabit LAN with one subnet (jumbo frames not turned on):
GLOBALSAN ISCSI PORTAL WAS NOT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS PRO
Because the Thecus N5200 Pro is a closed appliance, no performance tuning could be done on the server side. NAS/Target: Thecus N5200 Pro w/firmware 2.00.14 (Linux-based, 5 x 500 GB SATA II, RAID 6, all volumes XFS except iSCSI which was Mac OS Extended (Journaled))īecause my NAS/target supports iSCSI, AFP, SMB, and NFS, I was able to run tests that show some interesting performance differences. In the ubuntu machine, it only found one of the target in iscsi target server but in the iscsi target server both target can be shown by using tgt-admin command.Been doing some performance testing with various protocols related to shared storage.Ĭlient: iMac 24 (Intel), Mac OS X 10.5.5 w/globalSAN iSCSI Initiator version 3.3.0.43 Iscsi initiator in same subnet ( - Centos5) ~]# iscsiadm -m discovery -t st -p 192.168.180.88ĭ = CHAPĭ = wilsonĭ = xxxx Iscsi target in 192.168.180.88 ~]# tgt-admin -showīacking store path: /data/.vm.imgīacking store path: /data/.wy.img However, when I add one more target and try to connect from another machine (Centos5 in same subnet) but it show "no portals found". I installed a iscsi targets on a Centos6 server and configure one target that can be found on one client machine (Ubuntu 1304 in network 192.168.95.x).
0 kommentar(er)
