Hi Everyone,
Has anyone considered using the iSCSI disk protocol to create a large disk array as a backend for audio/video playback over ethernet or wireless while using <insert your OS desktop here> as a frontend iSCSI initiator?
Here's what I plan to do. Create a large iSCSi array target with several 7200 RPM SATA drives in either RAID 5 or 10, depending on how many drives I can stuff in the chassis. Install Fedora or other flavor of Linux as the server OS.
This will be the backend. For the front end, use either Fedora, Win XP or Win 7 as the iSCSI initiator to format the disks partitions to the desktops/laptops native OS. The frontend PC will format these drives as local drives. This allows audio and video files to be read at the block level over the iSCSI protocol. This is not like a Network Attached Storage (NAS) where the info is read at the file level. iSCSI is faster, however it is best when used with Gigabit switching.
The reason for doing this is the desktop OS doesn't care about what server OS your are using so long as they can both speak iSCSI. You can use a smaller PC in your audio/video space while having the extra storage somewhere else in the house. I haven't tested it, but using wireless could allow one to move the frontend system to any room where there is an A/V system. Just hook up a USB DAC and DVI or HDMI from the frontend PC to the A/V system.
I'm several months out from trying this myself, but will definately do it.
When I do, I will post my results here.
Vince
Has anyone considered using the iSCSI disk protocol to create a large disk array as a backend for audio/video playback over ethernet or wireless while using <insert your OS desktop here> as a frontend iSCSI initiator?
Here's what I plan to do. Create a large iSCSi array target with several 7200 RPM SATA drives in either RAID 5 or 10, depending on how many drives I can stuff in the chassis. Install Fedora or other flavor of Linux as the server OS.
This will be the backend. For the front end, use either Fedora, Win XP or Win 7 as the iSCSI initiator to format the disks partitions to the desktops/laptops native OS. The frontend PC will format these drives as local drives. This allows audio and video files to be read at the block level over the iSCSI protocol. This is not like a Network Attached Storage (NAS) where the info is read at the file level. iSCSI is faster, however it is best when used with Gigabit switching.
The reason for doing this is the desktop OS doesn't care about what server OS your are using so long as they can both speak iSCSI. You can use a smaller PC in your audio/video space while having the extra storage somewhere else in the house. I haven't tested it, but using wireless could allow one to move the frontend system to any room where there is an A/V system. Just hook up a USB DAC and DVI or HDMI from the frontend PC to the A/V system.
I'm several months out from trying this myself, but will definately do it.
When I do, I will post my results here.
Vince
I have never tested iSCSI initiator on windows but both linux server and client work fine. Another option is ATA Over Ethernet (AoE), again available in linux and perhaps in windows too. I have never played with that one, nor done any comparison tests.
Not sure what advantage this offers over NAS for this application... but there are several disadvantages. It means only one machine can access the content at a time, locks the content to the particular OS that created it (with workarounds for some filesystems...), and is less well supported by normal consumer devices you might want to use down the road (like a network-connected TV or something).
The advantage is it is faster and scalable. And yes, depending on the way it is setup, multiple machines can access the array.
FreeNas has an iSCSI initiator and if I'm not mistaken you can use Microsoft's iSCSI initiator on your Windows 7 box (I only tried it on Server 2008 R2 so far). You then use whatever player, like Foobar to stream audio.
I've been working with AoE for about 2 years now.
The playback is smooth without hiccups on my network client that is a very modest ARM based Linux embedded system over a 100 mbit/s network.
Not appreciably, if at all.
A clustered filesystem in your house? I mean I love to geek out as much as the next guy, and I'd probably have fun setting what you propose up, but don't act like there's a practical reason to do this...
SAN exists for clustering and virtualization, there's not really any other argument for it.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? I'm not acting like anything. Choose your words more carefully my man. Maybe this topic just isn't for you.
Who said anything about a clustered file system? I"m talking about making a large, expandable array available in the home via either ethernet cabling or wireless.
I'm not looking to create an independent disk subsystem that cost $10k.
I'm not talking about just using it for audio either, but for recording OTA TV and ripping blu-rays. How long before your 2 Tb NAS filles up, error401? 10 Blu-rays and you're already at 300Gb.
Way to use that imagination.
No, it's not just used for clustering and virtualization. These benefit from SANs and can run without one. iSCSI SANs are also used to make data appear local when it is remote (file distribution and backups over networks), which is what I'm trying to do in a smaller scale without the need for file sharing and to control the disk array as if it were a local partition.
Just because you're not interested and see no value, don't drag people to your level.
Someone else might find this interesting, if only to learn something different.
Don't tell me what I can, can't or shouldn't do.
Who said anything about a clustered file system? I"m talking about making a large, expandable array available in the home via either ethernet cabling or wireless.
I'm not looking to create an independent disk subsystem that cost $10k.
I'm not talking about just using it for audio either, but for recording OTA TV and ripping blu-rays. How long before your 2 Tb NAS filles up, error401? 10 Blu-rays and you're already at 300Gb.
Way to use that imagination.
No, it's not just used for clustering and virtualization. These benefit from SANs and can run without one. iSCSI SANs are also used to make data appear local when it is remote (file distribution and backups over networks), which is what I'm trying to do in a smaller scale without the need for file sharing and to control the disk array as if it were a local partition.
Just because you're not interested and see no value, don't drag people to your level.
Someone else might find this interesting, if only to learn something different.
Don't tell me what I can, can't or shouldn't do.
Last edited:
What other way are you going to mount the filesystem on multiple machines simultaneously? Read-only? Okay, yep, that's an advantage alright.
I have about 10TB in my home NAS. It's nearly full. Not that it matters.
Just trying to stop you and potentially others from wasting a ton of time on an untenable solution.
If that's what floats your boat, go for it.
vdi_nenna,
May I join error401 and ask how to mount a single filesystem multiple times read-write without using a clustered one? There may be some iSCSI solution but I am not aware of one.
May I join error401 and ask how to mount a single filesystem multiple times read-write without using a clustered one? There may be some iSCSI solution but I am not aware of one.
Phofman,
I agree, ordinarily one wouldn't have multiple connections to a single partition. That's not what I was proposing when I started the thread.
However, supposedly, it can be done but it depends on the target type. I haven't had the chance to research this yet and won't for a while. I will eventually.
I haven't read this article entirely, but looks like at least one person has done it with clustering.
Knowledge Layer :: Can I connect multiple servers to a single iSCSI LUN?
Again, sharing the partition was not what I intended.
Vince
I agree, ordinarily one wouldn't have multiple connections to a single partition. That's not what I was proposing when I started the thread.
However, supposedly, it can be done but it depends on the target type. I haven't had the chance to research this yet and won't for a while. I will eventually.
I haven't read this article entirely, but looks like at least one person has done it with clustering.
Knowledge Layer :: Can I connect multiple servers to a single iSCSI LUN?
Again, sharing the partition was not what I intended.
Vince
- Status
- Not open for further replies.