File storage vm attach disk vs NFS mount ?

[H4R0]

Hello everyone,

im wondering how should i attach my drives for nas stuff to a vm. I have 2 options in mind.

The vm will run services like samba, emby, minidlna, radarr, etc.

The drives will be setup as zfs raid on the host.

Option1
Add new disk to vm, the disk will then be ext4 formatted on the guest.
Less flexible. Not sure if zfs still offers all its benefits on a block device.
Overhead probably much less then Option2.

Option2
NFS share on the host mounted into guest.
Allows way more flexibility then Option1.
Adds a lot of overhead ? (needs nfs service on host, disk access wont be direct instead network/tcp overhead)

My guess is that attached storage will perform way better then a network mount.

What are your opinions and or experience with it ?

I will do some tests once i find time for it in the next couple of days.

 

[H4R0]

I did several tests and there is no real differences in daily use for 1gbit network.

Nfs benchmark on the vm host is about 98-99% performance of attached disk.

There is no noticable cpu or memory overhead.

However one thing thats kinda weird is that on the vm samba share once the file is fully transfered the nfs mount still takes 1-2 seconds to acknowledge the file write, which is not the case for attached disk. So the windows file transfer stays open for 2 seconds and says 0 bytes remaining.

I will use the nfs method.