cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Davis <scr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NFS vs iSCSI
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:50:16 GMT
Like I was mentioning, for the cut in theoretical performance, you get
something much easier to administer. Plenty of really nice SSD SSD/Disk
arrays do NFS and are blazing fast.

As for over provisioning, just like in KVM you can over provison the hell
out of CPU, especially if the workload your end users will be doing is a
known quantity. As for memory, I wouldn't even bother with memory
ballooning and other provisioning tricks. Memory is so cheap that it's
easier just to add a new hypervisor node once you need more RAM for the
cluster. That and you get more CPU to boot. Good rule off thumb is to never
over provision RAM... much happier end users :)
On Oct 28, 2012 10:15 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdingo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Trevor Francis
> <trevor.francis@tgrahamcapital.com> wrote:
> > Good question. This is a private cloud for an application we have
> developed. We will have no actual "public" users installing OS' of varying
> ranges.
> >
> > That being said. Cent 6.3 64-bit, is the only guest OS being deployed.
> It is also what I am intending to deploy my NFS using.
> >
>
> Then ISCSI would be a good choice is you have speed at the disk layer,
> no sense slowing it down with NFS.
>
> > Yes, I know that ZFS rocks and FreeBSD is the bees knees, but we know
> Cent and everything on our platform is standardized around that (short of
> XenServer hosts). Also, we don't need to take advantage of ZFS caching, as
> all of our deployed storage for guests is SSD anyway.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > TGF
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Jason Davis <scr512@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Decent read:
> >> http://lass.cs.umass.edu/papers/pdf/FAST04.pdf
> >>
> >> As far as CS + XenServer, I prefer NFS. Easier to manage, thin
> provisioning
> >> works from the get go (which is super important as XenServer uses CoW
> >> (linked clones) iterations from the template you use.) By default, XS
> uses
> >> LVM over iSCSI with iSCSI which can be confusing to administer. That
> and it
> >> doesn't thin provision... which sucks...
> >>
> >> In theory there are latency penalties with NFS (as mentioned in the
> paper)
> >> but in a live deployment, I never ran into this.
> >> On Oct 28, 2012 9:03 PM, "Trevor Francis" <
> trevor.francis@tgrahamcapital.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know this has been discussed on other forums with limited success in
> >>> explaining which is best in for aproduction environment, but could you
> >>> cloudstackers weigh in which storage technology would be best for both
> >>> primary and secondary storage for VMs running on Xenserver? Both are
> pretty
> >>> trivial to setup with NFS being the easiest.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Trevor Francis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message