Membase Bucket Types non-SASL vs SASL

>>>Is there any performance concern when using one over the other?
no

in general it depends whether you are using memcached with a ascii or binary client and how you can use a dedicated port for non-sasl bucket.

if you use a vbucket aware smart client however you will be directly connecting to memcached port.

copied from : http://www.couchbase.org/wiki/display/membase/Membase+Buckets

Non-SASL Buckets
Non-SASL buckets may be placed on any available port with the exception of port 11211 if the bucket is not named "default". Only one Non-SASL bucket may placed on any individual port. These buckets may be reached with a vBucket aware smart client, an ASCII client or a binary client that doesn't use SASL authentication

SASL Buckets
SASL authenticating Membase buckets may only be placed on port 11211 and each bucket is differentiated by its name and password. SASL bucket may not be placed on any other port beside 11211. These buckets can be reached with either a vBucket aware smart client or a binary client that has SASL support. These buckets cannot be reached with ASCII clients.

Considering that I am using the enyim .net vbucket aware smart client, is there any reason why i would pick a SASL bucket vs a dedicated port non-sasl bucket?

I did read the descriptions above but it was unclear to me which is right for me?

By using dedicated ports per bucket, you would use up more port numbers. That's usually not such a big deal, since most folks don't configure very many buckets (in fact, often just the default bucket). Remember, too, there's then extra port numbers to open up on firewalls or AWS Security Groups, etc.

SASL auth, too, is recommended for that extra security if you aren't in your own security tier (like your own datacenter, where connections from web app servers is trusted and connections from the wide world are disallowed).

Cheers,
Steve

Thanks, understood and that clarified things up nicely.