cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Huser <ahu...@7five-edv.de>
Subject Re: Primary Storage
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:37:29 GMT
Hi Fabrice,

I don't know  what other people do but i have no problems with Infiniband + GlusterFS + Cloudstack
I'm  not use  Nexenta it's based on Illumos and work not fine with Infiniband.
I have two different clusters in productiv enviroments. 

The first: Solaris 11  with built-in GlusterFS 3.3 export Gluster Vol. with RDMA. > performance
is okey you can use that for smaller enviroments
The Second: Is a little bit complex with a GlusterFS Server in the middle

ZFS Server: based on Solaris 11
1.) Create a zpool min. two vdevs and SSD read/write cache
2.) Create a thin provisioning Volume "zfs create -V" disable atime and enable compression
(do not enable dedup!) and export as (iWarp) SRP Target to the GlusterFS Server use a direct
connection without IB Switch.

GlusterFS Server:
1.) Use RedHat, CentOS or Fedora (I use CentOS 5 and 6)
2.) Use OFED driver from https://www.openfabrics.org
3.) Import the SRP Target from ZFS Server and format as xfs
4.) Create a Glustervolume "volume create xy transport rdma " (use only rdma)
5.) Connect with the second IB Port to a IB Switch 

Cloudstack Hypervisor Node:
1.) Use RedHat, CentOS or Fedora (I use CentOS 5 and 6)
2.) Use OFED driver from https://www.openfabrics.org
3.) Import the Glustervolume

ZFS Thin Volume ---- Infinband SRP  ----> GlusterFS ---- GFSVol rdma ----> IB Switch
----> Clients

The ZFS and GlusterFS Server form a Storage unit connect direct with 40Gbit Infiniband Point-to-Point
You do not feel that is a cable between!

Important: When you have Infiniband use not IPoIB with iSCSI! If one already has Infiniband
then you should also use the advantage.
IPoIB have a higher Latency as iWarp SRP!


SRP = usec

-- SRP -- 
local address: LID 0x01 QPN 0x44004b PSN 0xf3265b RKey 0x9804237c VAddr 0x00000001dda000
remote address: LID 0x0a QPN 0x10004a PSN 0x44072e RKey 0x1c0f115 VAddr 0x000000088e6000
------------------------------------------------------------------
 #bytes #iterations    t_min[usec]    t_max[usec]  t_typical[usec]
 2       1000          1.29           125.30       1.31   
------------------------------------------------------------------

-- IPoIB ---
[root@sv01sfogaa ~]# ping 10.200.0.10
PING 10.200.0.10 (10.200.0.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.200.0.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.147 ms
64 bytes from 10.200.0.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.116 ms

When you put load on IPoIB then increases the latency that is not good


That is my recommendation for a simple GlusterFS Mirror:

- Supermicro Server with Intel Hardware and Expander Backplane
- 1x Crucal-M4 SSD Read Cache
- 2x ZeusIOPs SSD Write cache (mirror)
- SATA 24/7 Harddrives
- LSI HBA 9207 or 9211
- ConnectX-2 QDR Dualport Infiniband Adaper (HP refurbished with full warrany for 100$) Importent
> Flash newest Firmware from Mellanox!
- Mellanox IB Swich
- Solaris 11
- GlusterFS 3.3 compiled with ib_verbs
- Gluster Volume transport only rdma

>> Throughput constant up to 200 Mbyte/s
more throughput with more storage servers or more harddrives on jbod

Info:

- I have some problems with infiniband RDMA or SRP with OpenIndiana or Illumos or Nexenta.
Some adapters have a high latency or not a stable connection. Use Solaris that's the right
way!
- OpenIndiana is Beta! Infiniband ib_verbs works not or not fine! 
- Use Solaris 11 Infiniband ib_verbs are native and stable
- Don't use Ubuntu Client Server for Infiniband! Use RedHat, Fedora or CentOS and install
the right drivers from https://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/OFED/
- You have not SSD Cache? Disable at the ZFS Volume the sync! Important! You loose Security
for your Data but some protocols use sync flags in transport. Example NFS use by default fsync.
write cache are not active. NFS writes data direct to the Harddrive. For Data Security and
Performance give the Storage Server a SSD write cache. ZFS works at default with sync=standard
that prevent write holes. (COW System)

I hope that I could help a little

Greeting from Germany
Andreas



----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- 

Von: "Fabrice Brazier" <fabrice.brazier@apalia.net> 
An: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2012 09:55:15 
Betreff: RE: Primary Storage 

Hi Andreas, 

Hello i just see your configuration, it seems quite interesting. 
If i understand well you want to build some zfs array on the backend. 
Export luns (probably by iscsi over infiniband) to you linux cluster, 
and on the linux cluster you put glusterFS. 
I can understand the point, with that you can have very good performance and 
reliability (zfs), 
scalability and redundancy (gluster) for very low cost. 
So just one question, did you try the global namespace implementation from 
nexenta? 
If yes can you tell me what configuration is the best for you? 
I mean the fact you have a gluster cluster in the middle must impact the 
overral 
performance no? 

Fabrice 

-----Message d'origine----- 
De : Andreas Huser [mailto:ahuser@7five-edv.de] 
Envoyé : mardi 23 octobre 2012 05:40 
À : cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org 
Objet : Re: Primary Storage 

Hi, 

for Cloudstack i use Solaris 11 ZFS + GlusterFS over Infiniband (RDMA). That 
gives the best performance and most scalable Storage. 
I have tasted some different solutions for primary Storage but the most are 
to expensive and for a CloudStack Cluster not economic or have a poor 
performance. 

My Configuration: 
Storage Node: 
Supermicro Server (Intel Hardware) with Solaris 11 with SSD write and read 
cache (read crucial-m4, write ZeusIOPS) GlusterFS and dualport ConnectX 
40Gbit/s Infiniband adapter. 

I have installed GlusterFS direct on Solaris with a modified code. 
Want you build bigger systems for more then 50 VMs it is better you split 
the Solaris and GlusterFS with a separte headnode for GlusterFS 

That looks like: 
Solaris ZFS Backendstorage with a dataset Volume (Thin Provision) --> ( SRP 
Target attached direct without Infiniband switch to GF Node) --> GlusterFS 
Node the srp target formatted with xfs filesystem, create a GlusterFS 
Volume --> ( Infiniband over a Mellanox Port Switch) --> Cloudstack Node 
mount glusterFS Volume over RDMA 

For the Dataset Volume at the ZFS Storage, disable atime and enable 
compression. 
(Space reclaim) With compression you can shrink the ZFS Volume with command 
at Linux dd /dev/zero or In a Windows VM with sdelete That gives you space 
left on the Primary Storage for deleted Files in a VM or for deleted vhd's 
or vm's in the cloudstack 

greeting Andreas 




Mit freundlichen Grüßen 

Andreas Huser 
Geschäftsführer 
System Engineer / Consultant 
(Cisco CSE, SMBAM, LCSE, ASAM) 
--------------------------------------- 
Zellerstraße 28 - 77654 Offenburg 
Tel: +49(781) 12786898 
Mobil: +49(176) 10308549 
ahuser@7five-edv.de 




----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- 

Von: "Outback Dingo" <outbackdingo@gmail.com> 
An: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2012 02:15:16 
Betreff: Re: Primary Storage 

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Ivan Rodriguez <ivanoch@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Solaris 11 ZFS and yes we tried different setups, raids levels number 
> of SSD cache, ARC zfs options etc etc etc. 
> 
> Cheers 
> 

VMWare ?? 

> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Outback Dingo 
> <outbackdingo@gmail.com>wrote: 
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ivan Rodriguez <ivanoch@gmail.com> 
>> wrote: 
>> > We are using ZFS, with jbod, not in production yet exporting NFS to 
>> > cloudstack, I'm not really happy about the performance 
>> > but I think is related to the hardware itself rather than technology, 
>> > we 
>> > are using intel SR2625UR and Intel 320 SSD, we were evaluating gluster 
>> > as 
>> > well, but we decided to move away from that path since gluster nfs is 
>> still 
>> > performing poorly, plus we would like to see cloudstack integrating the 
>> > gluster-fuse module, we haven't decided the final storage setup but at 
>> the 
>> > moment we had better results with ZFS. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> question is whos ZFS and have you "tweaked" the zfs / nfs config for 
>> performance 
>> 
>> > 
>> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Nik Martin <nik.martin@nfinausa.com 
>> >wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> On 10/22/2012 05:49 PM, Trevor Francis wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> ZFS looks really interesting to me and I am leaning that way. I am 
>> >>> considering using FreeNAS, as people seem to be having good luck with

>> >>> it. Can anyone weigh in here? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >> My personal opinion, I think FreeNAS and OpenFiler have horrible, 
>> horrible 
>> >> User Interfaces - not very intuitive, and they both seem to be file 
>> servers 
>> >> with things like iSCSI targets tacked on as an afterthought. 
>> >> 
>> >> Nik 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>> Trevor Francis 
>> >>> Partner 
>> >>> 46 Labs | The PeerEdge Cloud 
>> >>> http://www.46labs.com <http://www.46labs.com/> | 
>> http://www.peeredge.net 
>> >>> <http://www.peeredge.net/> 
>> >>> 405-362-0046 - Voice | 405-410-4980 - Cell 
>> >>> trevorgfrancis - Skype 
>> >>> trevor@46labs.com <mailto:trevor@46labs.com> 
>> >>> Solutions Provider for the Telecom Industry 
>> >>> 
>> >>> <http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge 
>> >>> <http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>>< 
>> >>> http://www.twitter.**com/peeredge <http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>><

>> >>> http://www.**twitter.com/peeredge <http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>><

>> >>> http://**www.facebook.com/PeerEdge 
>> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Jason Davis wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> ZFS would be an interesting setup as you can do the cache pools like

>> you 
>> >>>> would do in CacheCade. The problem with ZFS or CacheCade+DRBD is

>> >>>> that 
>> >>>> they 
>> >>>> really don't scale out well if you are looking for something with
a 
>> >>>> unified 
>> >>>> name space. I'll say however that ZFS is a battle hardened FS with

>> tons 
>> >>>> of 
>> >>>> shops using it. A lot of the whiz-bang SSD+SATA disk SAN things

>> >>>> these 
>> >>>> smaller start up companies are hocking are just ZFS appliances.

>> >>>> 
>> >>>> RBD looks interesting but I'm not sure if I would be willing to
put 
>> >>>> production data on it, I'm not sure how performant it is IRL. From
a 
>> >>>> purely technical perspective, it looks REALLY cool. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> I suppose anything is fast if you put SSDs in it :) GlusterFS is

>> another 
>> >>>> option although historically small/random IO has not been it's 
>> >>>> strong 
>> >>>> point. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> If you are ok spending money on software and want a scale out block

>> >>>> storage 
>> >>>> then you might want to consider HP LeftHand's VSA product. I am

>> >>>> personally 
>> >>>> partial to NFS plays:) I went the exact opposite approach and 
>> >>>> settled 
>> on 
>> >>>> Isilon for our primary storage for our CS deployment. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Nik Martin 
>> >>>> <nik.martin@nfinausa.com 
>> >>>> <mailto:nik.martin@nfinausa.**com <nik.martin@nfinausa.com>>>wrote:

>> >>>> 
>> >>>> On 10/22/2012 10:16 AM, Trevor Francis wrote: 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> We are looking at building a Primary Storage solution for an

>> >>>>>> enterprise/carrier class application. However, we want to
build it 
>> >>>>>> using 
>> >>>>>> a FOSS solution and not a commercial solution. Do you have
a 
>> >>>>>> recommendation on platform? 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> Trevor, 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> I got EXCELLENT results builing a SAN from FOSS using: 
>> >>>>> OS: Centos 
>> >>>>> Hardware: 2X storage servers, with 12x2TB 3.5 SATA drives. LSI

>> MegaRAID 
>> >>>>> with CacheCade Pro, with 240 GB Intel 520 SSDs configured to
do SSD 
>> >>>>> caching 
>> >>>>> (alternately, look at FlashCache from Facebook) 
>> >>>>> intel 10GB dual port nics, one port for crossover, on port for
up 
>> link 
>> >>>>> to 
>> >>>>> storage network 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> DRBD for real time block replication to active-active 
>> >>>>> Pacemaker+corosync for HA Resource management 
>> >>>>> tgtd for iSCSI target 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> If you want file backed storage, XFS is a very good filesystem
on 
>> Linux 
>> >>>>> now. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Pacemaker+Corosync can be difficult to grok at the beginning,
but 
>> that 
>> >>>>> setup gave me a VERY high performance SAN. The downside is it
is 
>> >>>>> entirely 
>> >>>>> managed by CLI, no UI whatsoever. 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Trevor Francis 
>> >>>>>> Partner 
>> >>>>>> 46 Labs | The PeerEdge Cloud 
>> >>>>>> http://www.46labs.com <http://www.46labs.com/> | 
>> >>>>>> http://www.peeredge.net 
>> >>>>>> <http://www.peeredge.net/> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 405-362-0046 - Voice | 405-410-4980 - Cell 
>> >>>>>> trevorgfrancis - Skype 
>> >>>>>> trevor@46labs.com <mailto:trevor@46labs.com> <mailto:

>> trevor@46labs.com 
>> >>>>>> > 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> Solutions Provider for the Telecom Industry 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/****peeredge< 
>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge>< 
>> >>>>>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge <http://www.twitter.com/peeredge

>> >>>< 
>> >>>>>> http://www.twitter.**com/**peeredge < 
>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge> 
>> >>>>>> >>< 
>> >>>>>> http://www.**twitter.com/**peeredge <http://twitter.com/peeredge>

>> >>>>>> < 
>> >>>>>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge <http://www.twitter.com/peeredge

>> >>>< 
>> >>>>>> http://**www.facebook.com/**PeerEdge< 
>> http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge>< 
>> >>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/**PeerEdge < 
>> http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge> 
>> >>>>>> >> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>> 
>> 

Mime
View raw message