Readynas Ultra 2 not possible to create a iSCSI target

You are basically going to allocate the LUN size you need, from the space available on the unit at the time of the set-up, so it will not touch existing data elsewhere on the Ultra.

I'm assuming you've using Frontview to set it up?
If so, navigate to volumes, ISCSI tab, Enable iSCSI support
then setup how you require it,
I'm sure you will but I cannot recommend that it's tested thoroughly before committing lot's of data to the LUN etc.

Yes setup a iscsi target and it works.... but the strange thing is that iscsi is slower then AFP shares..... I am working on an mac and always wireless........

Do you know why?

iSCSI is 25-30% slower than network access... even according to official performance numbers. I don't know why, but the Readynas systems (at least consumer ones) use file level iSCSI targets, block level ones would give greater performance. But that's not as painless/flexible to implement and use, as you have to dedicate whole volumes/partitions on the device as iSCSI targets.

mangrove wrote:
iSCSI is 25-30% slower than network access... even according to official performance numbers. I don't know why, but the Readynas systems (at least consumer ones) use file level iSCSI targets, block level ones would give greater performance. But that's not as painless/flexible to implement and use, as you have to dedicate whole volumes/partitions on the device as iSCSI targets.

iSCSI is fastest access to the ReadyNAS on Ultra and Pro my experience (Much faster and have possible to loadbalance if use two NICs)... Where do you get the 25-30% slower (Have you tested)? That Netgear using file instead of volume to iSCSI is because its easer to implement, but volume is generally faster.

Ghosthack wrote:
iSCSI is fastest access to the ReadyNAS on Ultra and Pro my experience (Much faster and have possible to loadbalance if use two NICs)... Where do you get the 25-30% slower (Have you tested)? That Netgear using file instead of volume to iSCSI is because its easer to implement, but volume is generally faster.

Then you most likely have some network related problems with your SMB setup. Of course I have tested, and also, here are the official performance numbers:
http://www.readynas.com/?page_id=5410