Differences Between NFS and iSCSI
NFS and iSCSI provide fundamentally different data sharing semantics. NFS is inherently suitable for data sharing , since it enable files to be shared among multiple client machines. In contrast, a block protocol such as iSCSI supports a single client for each volume on the block server . Consequently, iSCSI permits applications running on a single client machine to share remote data, but it is not directly suitable for sharing data across machines. It is possible, however, to employ iSCSI in shared multi-client environments by designing an appropriate distributed file system that runs on multiple clients and accesses data from block server.
The implications of caching are also different in the two scenarios. In NFS, the file system is located at the server and so is the file system cache (hits in this cache incur a network hop) . NFS clients also employ a cache that can hold both data and meta-data. To ensure consistency across clients, NFS v2 and v3 require that client perform consistency checks with the server on cached data and meta-data. The validity of cached data at the client is implementation-dependent--in Linux, cached meta-data is treated as potentially stale after 3 seconds and cached data after 30 seconds. Thus, meta-data and data reads may trigger a message exchange (i.e., a consistency check) with the server even in the event of a cache hit. NFS v4 can avoid this message exchange for data reads if the server supports file delegation. From the perspective of writes, both data and meta-data writes in NFS v2 are synchronous. NFS v3 and v4 supports asynchronous data writes, but meta-data updates continue to be synchronous. Thus, depending on the version, NFS has different degrees of write-through caching .
In iSCSI, the caching policy is governed by the file system. Since the file system cache is located at the client, both data and meta-data reads benefit from any cached content. Data updates are asynchronous in most file systems. In modern file systems, meta-data updates are also asynchronous, since such systems use log-based journaling for faster recovery. In the ext3 file system, for instance, meta-data is written asynchronously at commit points. The asynchrony and frequency of these commit points is a trade-off between recovery and performance (ext3 uses a commit interval of 5 seconds). Thus, when used in conjunction with ext3, iSCSI supports a fully write-back cache for data and meta-data updates.
Observe that the benefits of asynchronous meta-data update in iSCSI come at the cost of lower reliability of data and meta-data persistence than in NFS. Due to synchronous meta-data updates in NFS, both data and meta-data updates persist across client failure. However, in iSCSI, meta-data updates as well as related data may be lost in case client fails prior to flushing the journal and data blocks to the iSCSI server.