Hi Trevor, hint check this: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Mellanox-Infiniband-4X-HCA-PCI-E-MHGA28-1TC-7104-HCA-128LPX-/290625782203 Try NFS over RDMA, or IPoIB low latency. then nfs makes fun :)
so long.... Andreas ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- Von: "Jason Davis" <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Gesendet: Montag, 29. Oktober 2012 05:01:55 Betreff: Re: NFS vs iSCSI NFS failover is fine, I ran our Cluster with Isilon storage so we load balanced and could failover stupid easy. With my experiences with XS/XCP I found NFS much more pleasant to work with vs the iSCSI I did with our Equallogic array cluster. In any event, try both and see which one you like best... in all honesty with 10Gb/s Ethernet it frankly doesn't matter which protocol you go with. On Oct 28, 2012 10:53 PM, "Outback Dingo" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jason Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Like I was mentioning, for the cut in theoretical performance, you get > > something much easier to administer. Plenty of really nice SSD SSD/Disk > > arrays do NFS and are blazing fast. > > Not sure how it figures you think NFS is any easier to manage and > support then ISCSI is.... once its configured it just runs. > And ISCSI has the potential to do failover, NFS v3 cant really. > > > > > As for over provisioning, just like in KVM you can over provison the hell > > out of CPU, especially if the workload your end users will be doing is a > > known quantity. As for memory, I wouldn't even bother with memory > > ballooning and other provisioning tricks. Memory is so cheap that it's > > easier just to add a new hypervisor node once you need more RAM for the > > cluster. That and you get more CPU to boot. Good rule off thumb is to > never > > over provision RAM... much happier end users :) > > On Oct 28, 2012 10:15 PM, "Outback Dingo" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Trevor Francis > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Good question. This is a private cloud for an application we have > >> developed. We will have no actual "public" users installing OS' of > varying > >> ranges. > >> > > >> > That being said. Cent 6.3 64-bit, is the only guest OS being deployed. > >> It is also what I am intending to deploy my NFS using. > >> > > >> > >> Then ISCSI would be a good choice is you have speed at the disk layer, > >> no sense slowing it down with NFS. > >> > >> > Yes, I know that ZFS rocks and FreeBSD is the bees knees, but we know > >> Cent and everything on our platform is standardized around that (short > of > >> XenServer hosts). Also, we don't need to take advantage of ZFS caching, > as > >> all of our deployed storage for guests is SSD anyway. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > TGF > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Jason Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Decent read: > >> >> http://lass.cs.umass.edu/papers/pdf/FAST04.pdf > >> >> > >> >> As far as CS + XenServer, I prefer NFS. Easier to manage, thin > >> provisioning > >> >> works from the get go (which is super important as XenServer uses CoW > >> >> (linked clones) iterations from the template you use.) By default, XS > >> uses > >> >> LVM over iSCSI with iSCSI which can be confusing to administer. That > >> and it > >> >> doesn't thin provision... which sucks... > >> >> > >> >> In theory there are latency penalties with NFS (as mentioned in the > >> paper) > >> >> but in a live deployment, I never ran into this. > >> >> On Oct 28, 2012 9:03 PM, "Trevor Francis" < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I know this has been discussed on other forums with limited success > in > >> >>> explaining which is best in for aproduction environment, but could > you > >> >>> cloudstackers weigh in which storage technology would be best for > both > >> >>> primary and secondary storage for VMs running on Xenserver? Both are > >> pretty > >> >>> trivial to setup with NFS being the easiest. > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> > >> >>> Trevor Francis > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> >
