Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5DDCEE66 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9328 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2013 20:33:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 9302 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2013 20:33:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 9293 invoked by uid 99); 26 Feb 2013 20:33:07 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:33:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.217.182] (HELO mail-lb0-f182.google.com) (209.85.217.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:33:00 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gg6so3467731lbb.27 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:32:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=4TriWeKHRDmN1H5+oZv/O/7sdb2fqd40gCokvEvusdQ=; b=D3bRRtrspdINS2PccXjOoIHTvudN39MZ3H75kI3LbeEIltX0WRxFyzRcIqCbInEYa0 VZftgEC9nVUxX5HEkdyu7i8iWBvSDiWTjCQ4SDVioZJcL6qKLok3D5MoDhUPuIPA+Scr g4Ff8oPFPdYLahSr5jOVCWYBP5jETwiqN02t+6rEe+gHp6igzMoxX0WzFddfjmLOAFVH bbJapg3e3M9I0K41r/ryHNRMKTtNxpH/EnYJQ5enpDd4s7xXgbzMo4lSIUlMJ5wv21us tAx2Upg1ycr16LMtgc9rUrZuFlIurjDTj84pEWGWvLdfKqIwcGtx6C9VH5qWQjBW1R4m xt2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.9.134 with SMTP id z6mr1112215lba.72.1361910758523; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.6.65 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:32:38 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [192.150.9.201] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:32:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: iSCSI mounts and primary storage From: Chris Mutchler To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe2bd8fa6c1904d6a68e4f X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnodUff0dYbsDpOYLZU7EJ27SAB/B7gq4PZO095qtpELYfZQjeSh2h94gL4IURLaF9bs5XE X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e0cb4efe2bd8fa6c1904d6a68e4f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Clayton, Thank you for the links and the analysis. It was very helpful and greatly appreciated. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Clayton Weise wrote: > Chris, I'll start by referencing some additional reading from others > discussions on this topic: > > http://markmail.org/message/d3wg7ll7xzio76qc > > http://markmail.org/message/fqj3wmg55qb44ssh > > Pretty much anything involving Mike Tutkowski is centered around the topic > of individual LUNs per VM since it's one of the very cool and unique > features of SolidFire (per-volume QoS). Edison has been re-working much of > the underlying storage architecture within CS to allow for this type of > configuration. > > Next regarding Gluster as primary storage, in my experience with it this > hasn't ever turned out very good. Performance usually suffers and KVM and > CloudStack don't seem to do too well with it but my experience is a little > over 6 months old at this point and I'm sure things have changed since then > so I'd welcome anybody else to chime in. Personally I think you might be > better served to look at what Wido is doing with Ceph/RBD and CS as it > seems a more promising scale-out system, but that's just my personal > opinion based on what I have observed from others and not from my own > testing. > > Finally, as for what others are doing. For us, we are using iSCSI but we > share a LUN with multiple customers. So a given LUN might have many > smaller volumes on it belonging to a diverse number of accounts. This is > due to some technical limitations (256 LUNs per VM host), as well as the > logistical ones of managing the LUN sprawl which can get messy. In that > vein NFS is a very popular alternative. For various reasons (most of them > unfounded in my opinion) there seems to be a bias against NFS saying that > performance suffers. NFS performs extremely well under most circumstances > and is much easier to manage since it's just files on a filesystem. I > spend quite a bit of time in IRC and I can say from my time in there that > NFS is generally the most popular choice, and primarily for this reason. > > -Clayton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Mutchler [mailto:chris@leibnizcreations.com] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:12 AM > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Subject: iSCSI mounts and primary storage > > I am in the designing phase of creating a private cloud using CloudStack. > The current portion I am focusing my efforts on is the primary storage > design. I could use an iSCSI SAN as the primary storage, but if I do so is > it possible for CloudStack to create/use individual LUN for each VM as > opposed to a single LUN for the cluster? > > The other primary storage solution I am looking at is using GlusterFS. It > appears to be another good solution for creating a private cloud with > expandability and high-availability functionality in mind. > > What have other users decided for their primary storage devices and what > suggestions do you have for someone designing a private cloud solution? > > Thank you in advance for you time. > -- > Chris Mutchler > chris@leibnizcreations.com > -- Chris Mutchler chris@leibnizcreations.com --e0cb4efe2bd8fa6c1904d6a68e4f--