4 ms·

In my 20+ years of stoarage and ops experience, iSCSI was way more reliable, tunable, and monitor-able than anything in the FiberChannel world. “Just use TCP/I

• acdha 6y ago
  Maybe you were lucky - I had the misfortune of supporting some iSCSI devices which were slower & less stable, and lots of places had to have the “just because it uses the same cable doesn’t mean you should share a port” talk with their network people – but I was mostly comparing it to direct-attached storage which has fewer parts to fail and, critically, doesn’t have the same correlated failures which you get with shared anything (and, of course, the trade-off or forcing you to do redundancy at a higher level). Most of the problems I remember in the last decade fell into that last category: over-commitment and reserved capacity, failures showing that redundancy wasn’t as good as the vendor promised, etc. which are quite reasonably concerns for EBS, too.
  • tatersolid 6y ago
    I dealt mostly with LeftHand and EqualLogic gear when iSCSI was getting rolling. Both were far more reliable than the various FC gear I dealt with around the same time. You could pull any node and things kept chugging. Rolling software updates were non-events. Simplicity has its virtues I suppose. Running 4 or 8 gigabit cables to each node on dedicated switch ports likely also helped.