On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 21:47 Strahil <hunter86...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong but thin LVM is needed for creation of snapshots. > Yes, you need thin provisioned logical volumes for gluster snapshots. Actually, gluster snapshots are lvm snapshots under the hood.
> I am a new gluster user , but I don't see any LVM issues so far. > Neither me > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov > On Apr 8, 2019 21:15, Alex K <rightkickt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I use gluster on top of lvm for several years without any issues. > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 10:43 Felix Kölzow <felix.koel...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Thank you very much for your response. > > I fully agree that using LVM has great advantages. Maybe there is a > misunderstanding, > > but I really got the recommendation to not use (normal) LVM in combination > with gluster to > > increase the volume. *Maybe someone in the community has some good or bad > experience* > > *using LVM and gluster in combination.* So please let me know :) > > > One of the arguments for things like Gluster and Ceph is that you can many > storage nodes that operate in parallel so that the ideal is a very large > number of small drive arrays over a small number of very large drive > arrays. > > I also agree we that. In our case, we actually plan to get Redhat Gluster > Storage Support and an increase of > > storage nodes would mean an increase of support costs while the same > amount of storage volume is available. > > So we are looking for a reasonable compromise. > > Felix > On 03.04.19 17:12, Alvin Starr wrote: > > As a general rule I always suggest using LVM. > I have had LVM save my career a few times. > I believe that if you wish to use Gluster snapshots then the underlying > system needs to be a thinly provisioned LVM volume. > > Adding storage space to an LVM is easy and all modern file-systems support > online growing so it is easy to grow a file-system. > > If you have directory trees that are very deep and wide then you may want > to put a bit of thought into how you configure your Gluster installation. > We have a volume with about 50M files and something like an xfs dump or > rsync of the underlying filesystem will take close to a day but copying the > data over Gluster takes weeks. > This is a problem with all clustered file systems because there is extra > locking and co-ordination required for file operations. > > Also you need to realize that the performance of something like the > powervault is limited to the speed of the connection to your server. > So that a single SAS link is limited to 6Gb(for example) and so is your > disk array but most internal raid controllers will support the number of > ports * 6Gb. > This means that a computer with 12 drives in the front will access disk > faster than a system with a 12 drive disk array attached by a few SAS > links. > > One of the arguments for things like Gluster and Ceph is that you can many > storage nodes that operate in parallel so that the ideal is a very large > number of small drive arrays over a small number of very large drive > arrays. > > > On 4/3/19 10:20 AM, kbh-admin wrote: > > Hello Gluster-Community, > > > we consider to build several Gluster-servers and have a question > regarding lvm and Glusterfs. > > > Scenario 1: Snapshots > > Of course, taking snapshots is a good capability and we want to use lvm > for that. > > > Scenaraio 2: Increase Gluster volume > > We want to increase the Gluster volume by adding hdd's and/or by adding > > dell powervaults later. We got the recommendation to set up a new Gluster > volume > > for the powervaults and don't use lvm in that case (lvresize ....) . > > > What would you suggest and how do you manage both lvm and Glusterfs > together? > > > Thanks in advance. > > > Felix > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > <Gluster-users@Gluster.org> > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users