Hello to community after long break 🙂 Anyone has any idea about ReadyNAS RN214 (6.10.9) iSCSI configuration worth for performance vs SMB 3 ?I set it up the network & clients jumbo frames enabled, my aim is to use this as external storage for my Mac devices. (I will not need sharing). Stephanb may comment to this as always 😉Thanks in advance.

Leventh wrote: Yes, it's true but I'm planning to create two LUNs which is one for my MacBook and other for Mac mini devices (with Deamon Tools), so, what I'm thinking is to configure these two LUNs separated to each device/initiator for storage drive purposes rather than shares, it seems possible and I'm wonder what's your opinion? I don't use Macs, so I have no way to compare iSCSI performance vs SMB. You could of course set up a test iSCSI lun and meaure it. But more broadly, I don't think that performance is the big differentiator. With iSCSI, the LUN appears to the Mac like a dedicated hard drive (a block storage device). Formattting is done by the Mac, and therefore with current MacOS would be APFS. So it could be case-sensitive and encrypted if you want that. Encryption would be done in the Mac, not the NAS. Since iSCSI is really intended to create dedicated storage for a single client, it will be unwieldy to share the LUN for Mac mini devices. You'd have to be careful to disconnect the LUN from each Mac when you are done using it.

Forum Discussion

Leventh

Apprentice

Nov 16, 2024

Solved

iSCSI performance vs SMB 3 (or AFP) for using NAS as external storage

Hello to community after long break 🙂

Anyone has any idea about ReadyNAS RN214 (6.10.9) iSCSI configuration worth for performance vs SMB 3 ?

I set it up the network & clients jumbo frames enabled, my aim is to use this as external storage for my Mac devices. (I will not need sharing).

Stephanb may comment to this as always 😉

Thanks in advance.

StephenB
Nov 16, 2024
Leventh wrote:

Yes, it's true but I'm planning to create two LUNs which is one for my MacBook and other for Mac mini devices (with Deamon Tools), so, what I'm thinking is to configure these two LUNs separated to each device/initiator for storage drive purposes rather than shares, it seems possible and I'm wonder what's your opinion?

I don't use Macs, so I have no way to compare iSCSI performance vs SMB. You could of course set up a test iSCSI lun and meaure it.

But more broadly, I don't think that performance is the big differentiator. With iSCSI, the LUN appears to the Mac like a dedicated hard drive (a block storage device). Formattting is done by the Mac, and therefore with current MacOS would be APFS. So it could be case-sensitive and encrypted if you want that. Encryption would be done in the Mac, not the NAS.

Since iSCSI is really intended to create dedicated storage for a single client, it will be unwieldy to share the LUN for Mac mini devices. You'd have to be careful to disconnect the LUN from each Mac when you are done using it.

5 Replies

StephenB
Guru
Nov 16, 2024
Leventh wrote:

Anyone has any idea about ReadyNAS RN214 (6.10.9) iSCSI configuration worth for performance vs SMB 3 ?

iSCSI only allows one client to connect at a time, so not a good option if you want to access the files from multiple devices.
- Leventh
  Apprentice
  Nov 16, 2024
  StephenB
  Yes, it's true but I'm planning to create two LUNs which is one for my MacBook and other for Mac mini devices (with Deamon Tools), so, what I'm thinking is to configure these two LUNs separated to each device/initiator for storage drive purposes rather than shares, it seems possible and I'm wonder what's your opinion?
  Thx.
  - StephenB
    Guru
    Nov 16, 2024
    Leventh wrote:
    
    Yes, it's true but I'm planning to create two LUNs which is one for my MacBook and other for Mac mini devices (with Deamon Tools), so, what I'm thinking is to configure these two LUNs separated to each device/initiator for storage drive purposes rather than shares, it seems possible and I'm wonder what's your opinion?
    
    I don't use Macs, so I have no way to compare iSCSI performance vs SMB. You could of course set up a test iSCSI lun and meaure it.
    
    But more broadly, I don't think that performance is the big differentiator. With iSCSI, the LUN appears to the Mac like a dedicated hard drive (a block storage device). Formattting is done by the Mac, and therefore with current MacOS would be APFS. So it could be case-sensitive and encrypted if you want that. Encryption would be done in the Mac, not the NAS.
    
    Since iSCSI is really intended to create dedicated storage for a single client, it will be unwieldy to share the LUN for Mac mini devices. You'd have to be careful to disconnect the LUN from each Mac when you are done using it.