It’s not actually going that great, there is already infighting on the direction of the scripts.

Are you having trouble reading context?

No, I’m not applying 2005 security, I’m saying NFS hasn’t evolved much since 2005, so throw it in a dedicated link by itself with no other traffic and call it a day.

Yes, iscsi allows the use of mounted luns as datastores like any other, you just need to use the user space iscsi driver and tools so that iscsi-ls is available. Do not use the kernel driver and args. This is documented in many places.

If you’re gonna make claims to strangers on the internet, make sure you know what you’re talking about first.

Yes, i have. Same security principles in 2005 as today.

Proxmox iscsi support is fine.

Oh, OK. I should have elaborated.

Yes, agreed. It’s so difficult to secure NFS that it’s best to treat it like a local connection and just lock it right down, physically and logically.

When i can, I use iscsi, but tuned NFS is almost as fast. I have a much higher workload than op, and i still am unable to bottleneck.

I don’t know what you’re on about, I’m talking about segregating with vlans and firewall.

If you’re encrypting your San connection, your architecture is wrong.

Your workload just won’t see much difference with any of them, so take your pick.

NFS is old, but if you add security constraints, it works really well. If you want to tune for bandwidth, try iSCSI , bonus points if you get zfs-over-iSCSI working with tuned block size. This last one is blazing fast if you have zfs at each and you do Zfs snapshots.

Beyond that, you’re getting into very tuned SAN things, which people build their careers on, its a real rabbit hole.