Re: [CentOS-virt] Thoughts on storage infrastructure for small scale HA virtual machine deployments

2010-03-07 Thread Christopher G. Stach II
- Grant McWilliams grantmasterfl...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm replacing my setup with
 three Intel SSDs in a RAID0 with either iSCSI or ATAoE. The RAID0 will
 be synced to a disk based storage as backup. We'll see pretty soon how
 many concurrent disk based operations this setup can handle.

I haven't benchmarked anything like that in a while. I'm not saying that RAID 0 
with 3 targets is going to be non-performant, but I would expect a parallel 
array to be better for random ops unless a classroom workload falls into 
sequential for some reason (software installation). Do you have any numbers 
testing this, or better, real world stats?

-- 
Christopher G. Stach II
http://ldsys.net/~cgs/
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt


Re: [CentOS-virt] Thoughts on storage infrastructure for small scale HA virtual machine deployments

2010-03-03 Thread Grant McWilliams
  If all the 40 VMs start copying files at the same time that would mean
  that the bandwidth share for each VM would be tiny.

 Would they? It's a possibility, and fun to think about, but what are the
chances? You will usually run into this with backups, cron, and  other
scheduled [non-business load] tasks. These are far cheaper to fix with
manually adjusting schedules than any other way, unless you are rolling in
dough.

I have a classroom environment where every VM is always doing the same thing
in step ie. formatting partitions, installing software etc.. We hit the disk
like a bunch of crazy people. I'm replacing my setup with three  Intel SSDs
in a RAID0 with either iSCSI or ATAoE. The RAID0 will be synced to a disk
based storage as backup. We'll see pretty soon how many concurrent disk
based operations this setup can handle.

I'll be bonding 3 or 4 of  the iSCSI box ethernet cards and then going from
there to see what each of the servers in the cloud needs as far as their
connection.

Grant McWilliams

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think I know, I'll use
Windows.
Now they have two problems.
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt


Re: [CentOS-virt] Thoughts on storage infrastructure for small scale HA virtual machine deployments

2010-03-01 Thread Christopher G. Stach II
- Dennis J. denni...@conversis.de wrote:

 What I'm aiming for as a starting point is a 3-4 host cluster with
 about 10 VMs on each host and a 2 system DRBD based cluster as a
 redundant storage backend.

That's a good idea.

 The question that bugs me is how I can get enough bandwidth between the 
 hosts and the storage to provide the VMs with reasonable I/O
 performance.

You may also want to investigate whether or not a criss-cross replication setup 
 (1A-2a, 2B-1b) is worth the complexity to you. That will spread the load 
across two drbd hosts and give you approximately the same fault tolerance at a 
slightly higher risk. (This is assuming that risk-performance tradeoff is 
important enough to your project.)

 If all the 40 VMs start copying files at the same time that would mean
 that the bandwidth share for each VM would be tiny.

Would they? It's a possibility, and fun to think about, but what are the 
chances? You will usually run into this with backups, cron, and other scheduled 
[non-business load] tasks. These are far cheaper to fix with manually adjusting 
schedules than any other way, unless you are rolling in dough.

 Would I maybe get away with 4 bonded gbit ethernet ports? Would I
 require fiber channel or 10gbit infrastructure?

Fuck FC, unless you want to get some out of date, used, gently broken, or 
no-name stuff, or at least until FCoE comes out. (You're probably better off 
getting unmanaged IB switches and using iSER.)

Can't say if 10GbE would even be enough, but it's probably overkill. Just add 
up the PCI(-whatever) bus speeds of your hosts, benchmark your current load or 
realistically estimate what sort of 95th percentile loads you would have across 
the board, multiply by that percentage, and fudge that result for SLAs and 
whatnot. Maybe go ahead and do some FMEA and see if losing a host or two is 
going to peak the others over that bandwidth. If you find that 10GbE may be 
necessary, a lot of mobos and SuperMicro have a better price per port for DDR 
IB (maybe QDR now) and that may save you some money. Again, probably overkill. 
Check your math. :)

Definitely use bonding. Definitely make sure you aren't going to saturate the 
bus that card (or cards, if you are worried about losing an entire adapter) is 
plugged into. If you're paranoid, get switches that can do bonding across 
supervisors or across physical fixed configuration switches. If you can't 
afford those, you may want to opt for 2Nx2N bonding-bridging. That would limit 
you to probably two 4-1GbE cards per host, just for your SAN, but that's 
probably plenty. Don't waste your money on iSCSI adapters. Just get ones with 
TOEs.

-- 
Christopher G. Stach II
http://ldsys.net/~cgs/
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt