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 04:01:55 GMT
NFS failover is fine, I ran our Cluster with Isilon storage so we load
balanced and could failover stupid easy. With my experiences with XS/XCP I
found NFS much more pleasant to work with vs the iSCSI I did with our
Equallogic array cluster.

In any event, try both and see which one you like best... in all honesty
with 10Gb/s Ethernet it frankly doesn't matter which protocol you go with.
On Oct 28, 2012 10:53 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdingo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jason Davis <scr512@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not sure how it figures you think NFS is any easier to manage and
> support then ISCSI is.... once its configured it just runs.
> And ISCSI has the potential to do failover, NFS v3 cant really.
>
> >
> > 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