NFS versus VMFS

I see an increasing number of VMware platforms which use NFS rather than VMFS for data storage.

Is there a performance, security, risk and/or other issue between them that people should be concerned about?

View Reddit by VirtualMountainView Source


To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below

Related Articles


  1. Just follow best practices you should follow for ANY storage network. Isolate. Whether it’s vSAN, iSCSI, NFS and even FC, the network used for storage should be isolated from people and systems that don’t need access to it.

  2. NFS is easier to manage, but does not have MPIO features (supported ones)

    VMFS over iSCSI is a great deployment if redundancy is needed because you can use completely independent paths for MPIO

  3. See Netapp document tr-4597
    I personally used NFS for years and liked it.
    The biggest Site had 2500 Users, and i never hit the 10 gibt Limit. Meanwhile the systems run on 25 Gibt.

    In theory there ist a Performance penalty, but you need a good tooling just to bei able to measure it.

    Reduced complexity, very ease to manage it. And in Terms of Netapp the “native” Storage protocol.

  4. Every option has their upsides.

    We use iSCSI but mainly for the multipathing. NFS would be good in other ways, like the ability to easily connect to it from anything to directly access the files. Accessing VMFS is trickier. Doable, but trickier.

    Edit: also, you can serve NFS directly from a unit that runs the ZFS file system and leverage all the good things in ZFS, like compression and super-performant snapshots, and of course the superb corruption resistance of fully checksummed data.

  5. I manage a MASSIVE environment. It uses NFS. If I had a choice, I would trash all of it and switch to FC. NFS has a ton of caveats, like reclaiming space is not automatic like VMFS. AND, yes, there is a speed difference. FC is MUCH faster when properly tuned.

Leave a Reply