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

[Leventh]

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 · Accepted solution]

---

@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.

[StephenB]

---

@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]

@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 · Accepted solution]

---

@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.

[Sandshark]

If something bad happens, recovery options will be much more limited with iSCSI.

[Leventh]

Right, due to all of these situations I think I will give up this adventure 😕 it looks old tech and server side configuration.
Thanks anyway.