Who runs NFS?

[thickclouds]

Since I can't create a poll I figured this would work....B-)

[jcck20007]

cool, i will check out, cloud computing has been generating a lot of buzz in last past year, will probably be the same way for coming years

[JeffDrury]

Running NFS and iSCSI. Mostly using NFS for test/dev and ISO storage, prod VM's are iSCSI.

[stefan82]

• NFS for everything not using Fibre Channel.

• No need for a solution like iSCSI for me.

NFS has all the performance iSCSI can offer including more and is really management friendly concerning growing the datastore.

Fibre Channel for the enterprise.

[RParker]

Who runs NFS?

Same as Jeff, we have NFS mostly for standby images and ISO's for installing OS and updates.

We use Fibre for everything else, NFS is easier because it can be on any machine, and it doesn't really require special setup.

[mehul96]

NFS for everything so far

Exploring iSCSI

[pauljrb]

NFS on 2003 box for ISO's and templates (very easy to manage)

FC for production VM's

[Rockapot]

I have seen a company using NFS with +-100 VM's hosted on ESX 3.02. Worked fine..

Most of the deployments I see are iSCSI and F/C but there is nothing wrong with NFS.

Carl

[dazole]

We're running 100+ vm's via 6 nfs mount to 2 different NetApp filers. Performance is fine, management is a dream. We have no plans to move away from it, either.

[AWo]

NFS for low priority, low performance, test systems and templates. This is due to the fact that we want to save the more expensive SAN storage (that's why we don't use the Celerra's as NFS servers) for guests which needs the performance and that we do not have the appropriate number of NIC's to create a satisfying NFS link.

AWo

VCP / vEXPERT 2009