cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tomasz Chendynski <tomasz_chendyn...@polcom.com.pl>
Subject Re: Hardware question
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:17:01 GMT
Hi Mads,
Please see this article a bit old now.
http://www.infostor.com/disk-arrays/skyera-raid-5-kills-ssd-arrays.html

I think you should look for AFA solutions (PureStorage - our T0 storage) 
with inline deduplication and compression.
I think that RAID 6 is a bad idea.

Tomek


W dniu 2015-03-03 o 14:20, Mads Nordholm pisze:
> Very useful input indeed. I think I might end up going with a more
> conventional setup for starters, and then play with CEPH on the site. And
> that then leads to another question: Does anybody have some input on what
> RAID level to use for a more conventional storage setup? I am looking at
> deploying a setup that exclusively uses SSD, so I am probably a bit more
> interested in getting as many usable GBs as possible, than I am in
> optimising I/O.
>
> So far, I have been hearing people advocating RAID 10 as well as RAID 6. I
> am personally leaning towards RAID 6, but I would love to get some input
> from someone with more experience using these different RAID levels in
> production.
>
> --
> Mads Nordholm
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Vadim Kimlaychuk <Vadim.Kimlaychuk@elion.ee>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrija,
>>
>>          This is my choise already -- FreeBSD + ZFS with SSD for ZIL/L2ARC
>> cache + NFS.  Going to be at production within couple of weeks. You have
>> read my thoughts ! :)
>>
>> Vadim.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.panic@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:25 PM
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Hardware question
>>
>> I'm personaly having fights with CEPh used for Primary storage - I ike
>> CEPH VERY MUCH, but hate it at the same time (hars word, I know...)
>>
>> For Primary storage - my suggestions, play arround if you like, but avoid
>> it at the end...till it matures better, or simply the integration with CEPH
>> matures better.
>>
>> If you are not using 10G network and serious hardware - it's crappy
>> experience... SSD for Journal, etc...
>>
>> It's a fight  - whenever I do some maintance on CEPH I end up swetting,
>> clients asking why is everythgin so slow, etc...
>>
>> For our next cloud, I'm going with ZFS/NFS definitively...
>>
>> Be warned :)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On 3 March 2015 at 13:15, Vadim Kimlaychuk <Vadim.Kimlaychuk@elion.ee>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mads,
>>>
>>>          CEPH is good indeed, but keep in mind that you should really
>>> be expert at this type of SDS. There are points that are not visible
>>> from the first look and may bring some unpleasent surprises.  For
>> example: "default"
>>> option for storage I have tested was to make snapshots automatically
>>> from the files being saved to primary storage. As a consequence when
>>> you delete VM there are artifacts (snapshots) that are connect to
>>> deleted VM not being deleted by Cloudstack (since CS does not know they
>> exist).
>>>                 Another point - you can't directly use it as secondary
>>> storage. Need to set-up application server and run RadosGW.
>>> Performance - is a big question mark here. You need NFS or iSCSI anyway.
>>>          What we haven't fully tested - disaster recovery or
>>> malfunction simulation. You must know how to recover from all types of
>>> the faults. It is very easy to lose everything by just doing wrong
>>> things (or in wrong order).  From my point of view Ceph is rather
>>> complex to start together with CS. It may be easy to set up, but not so
>> easy to manage.
>>>          Will suggest you to run it like a year at development to make
>>> yourself confident you can manage it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Vadim.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mads Nordholm [mailto:mads@nordholm.dk]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:16 PM
>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Hardware question
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your answer, Lucian. CEPH sounds like a very
>>> interesting solution. I will have to do some more research on that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mads Nordholm
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mads,
>>>>
>>>> Imo, if you want that flexibility you should go with non-local storage.
>>>> CEPH is a popular choice here, but you will need 10 Gbps between
>>>> hypervisors and storage servers if you want reasonable performance.
>>>> So, if you need more storage just add more CEPH servers. Need more
>>>> compute, add more hypervisors.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>> Lucian
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>>
>>>> Nux!
>>>> www.nux.ro
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Mads Nordholm" <mads@nordholm.dk>
>>>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, 2 March, 2015 17:19:40
>>>>> Subject: Hardware question
>>>>> I am planning a small Cloudstack setup (using KVM for
>>>>> virtualisation)
>>>> that
>>>>> will allow me to run roughly 100 VPSs with these average
>> requirements:
>>>>> - 1 core
>>>>> - 512 MB RAM
>>>>> - 20 GB SSD
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in input regarding a hardware configuration that
>>>>> will support this, and how to best build a small setup that will
>>>>> scale easily
>>>> as
>>>>> I grow. Within a year or so, I expect to have more than 1,000
>>>>> guest
>>>> running.
>>>>> I basically need a setup that will not completely break the bank
>>>>> as I
>>>> start
>>>>> out, but also one that will scale well as I grow. I am
>>>>> particularly concerned with being able to add only the resources I
>>>>> need. If I need
>>>> more
>>>>> storage, I want to be able to add only that (preferably just by
>>>>> adding disks to a RAID array), and if I need more computing power,
>>>>> I want to be able to add only that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any input greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mads Nordholm
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Andrija Panić
>>


Mime
View raw message