cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Warren Nicholson <warren.nichol...@nfinausa.com>
Subject Re: What's everyone using for primary storage?
Date Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:29:11 GMT
We are using our 612i22s SAN.

It works great with cloudstack.

Check them out at www.nfinausa.com

Warren


On 2013-03-14 15:10, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
> I've been happy with glusterfs. for a sharedmountpoint kind of
> storage. Works great.
>
> (Note: invested in Infiniband to make things fast)
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Musayev, Ilya <imusayev@webmd.net> 
> wrote:
>> 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