cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net>
Subject RE: What's everyone using for primary storage?
Date Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:51:28 GMT
I've seen several folks build their own storage clusters and use Nexenta.

We use EMC VMAX.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:52 PM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What's everyone using for primary storage?
> 
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Kirk Jantzer <kirk.jantzer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > For my testing, because of available resources, I chose local storage.
> > However, shared storage (like GlusterFS or the like) is appealing.
> > What are you using? Why did you chose what you're using? How many
> > instances are you running? etc.
> > Thanks!!
> 
> So I think it depends on workload and use case.
> If your applications are highly fault tolerant and largely stateless, you simply
> may not care about HA. Besides you'll almost certainly get better
> performance with local storage.
> If you are running a test/dev environment, you can probably tolerate
> instance failure, so why use shared storage.
> If people are going to come scream at you and threaten to take money away
> if something fails, perhaps you want something a bit more robust.
> 
> The best of both worlds (with plenty of compromises too) is distributed,
> replicated shared storage like Ceph RBD. (GlusterFS 3.4, with all of the work
> that IBM has done around KVM is promising, but yet to be released. Early
> versions were robust, but had problems at any scale providing decent IO)
> Sheepdog is also promising and I keep hearing there are patches incoming for
> Sheepdog support. Of course these are all KVM-only for the moment.
> 
> There are also plenty of people who do both local and shared storage.
> With higher internal costs for deploying to shared storage with the
> assumption that folks would do it for things that need a higher level of
> resiliency or less tolerance for failure.
> 
> For shared storage, I've seen everything from NFS running on Linux to things
> like Isilon, Netapp, and EMC - again the choice depending on the tolerance
> for failure.
> 
> --David



Mime
View raw message