cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mads Nordholm <m...@nordholm.dk>
Subject Re: Hardware question
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:23:55 GMT
Now reading about ZFS, and see that it includes RAID-Z, which sounds very
interesting indeed. Don't know how to thank you guys for all the quality
feedback I am getting through this list. I greatly appreciate it.

--
Mads Nordholm

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Mads Nordholm <mads@nordholm.dk> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message