Your fateful decision: NFS or iSCSI?

The two predominant IP storage protocols have wildly different strengths and weaknesses. Is one really better than the other?

Over the last several weeks, I've delved into forgotten aspects of building an IP storage network and how to best leverage it with both NFS and iSCSI -- the two dominant IP storage protocols used in virtualization. Throughout that time, I've received a bunch of queries from readers, all united by one question: Which is better, NFS or iSCSI?

As with many hotly debated IT subjects, the choice between any two popular competing technologies is less about which is better overall and more about which is best for solving the challenge at hand. NFS and iSCSI are no different. Both have strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. But the future of storage -- which will make geographically diverse storage clustering a reality -- may significantically factor into your choice of protocol.

File vs. block
As I mentioned in last week's post, NFS and iSCSI couldn't be much more different, either in their implementation or history. NFS was developed by Sun Microsystems in the early 1980s as a general-purpose file sharing protocol that allowed network clients to read and write files to a server across a network. iSCSI came along much later, in the early 2000s, as an IP-based alternative to Fibre Channel -- which, like Fibre Channel, encapsulates block-level SCSI commands and ships them across a network.

The key difference is where the file system is implemented and managed. In file-level implementations such as NFS, the server or storage array hosts the file system, and clients read and write files into that file system. In block-level implementations such as iSCSI and Fibre Channel, the storage array offers up a collection of blocks to the client, which then formats that raw storage with whatever file system it decides to use.

To continue reading this article register now