Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Hi,
Is it identical?
In the places we use sync=disabled (e.g. analysis scratch areas),
we're totally content with losing last x seconds/minutes of writes,
and understood that on-disk consistency is not impacted.
Cheers,Dan
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without journals
> or XFS with barriers disabled.
> The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very high risk
> (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
>
> Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
> optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
>
> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster
> :
>>
>> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
>> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
>> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>>
>> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
>> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
>> if it works for you.
>>
>> -- Dan
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly with
>> > the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
>> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and the
>> > compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS directly
>> > without local ("proxy") mount.
>> >
>> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If
>> > using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
>> > avoid data corruption.
>> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less
>> > that breaks.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril
>> > :
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via
>> >> NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to
>> >> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
>> >> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask for
>> >> any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”. Both
>> >> designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we
>> >> grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access
>> >> virtual machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in
>> >> this sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or CephFS.
>> >> We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount the
>> >> resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
>> >> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we
>> >> would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and
>> >> then, via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the
>> >> block storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy
>> >> ZFS which would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And
>> >> this filesystem would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Prema
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> ceph-users mailing list
>> >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >
>> > ___
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Yes, the access VM layer is there because of multi-tenancy - we need to
provide parts of the storage into different private environments (can be
potentially on private IP addresses). And we need both - NFS as well as
CIFS.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM Ashley Merrick
wrote:
> Does your use case mean you need something like nfs/cifs and can’t use
> CephFS mount directly?
>
> Has been quite a few advances in that area with quotas and user management
> in recent versions.
>
> But obviously all depends on your use case at client end.
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:51 PM, Premysl Kouril
> wrote:
>
>> Some kind of single point will always be there I guess. Because even if
>> we go with the distributed filesystem, it will be mounted to the access VM
>> and this access VM will be providing NFS/CIFS protocol access. So this
>> machine is single point of failure (indeed we would be running two of them
>> for active-passive HA setup. In case of distributed filesystem approach the
>> failure of the access VM would mean re-mounting the filesystem on the
>> passive access VM. In case of "monster VM" approach, in case of the VM
>> failure it would mean reattaching all block volumes to a new VM.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:40 PM Ashley Merrick
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My 2 cents would be depends how H/A you need.
>>>
>>> Going with the monster VM you have a single point of failure and a
>>> single point of network congestion.
>>>
>>> If you go the CephFS route you remove that single point of failure if
>>> you mount to clients directly. And also can remove that single point of
>>> network congestion.
>>>
>>> Guess depends on the performance and uptime required , as I’d say that
>>> could factory into your decisions.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:36 PM, Premysl Kouril <
>>> premysl.kou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Hi Kevin,
I should have also said, that we are internally inclined towards the
"monster VM" approach due to seemingly simpler architecture (data
distribution on block layer rather than on file system layer). So my
original question is more about comparing the two approaches (distribution
on block layer vs distribution on filesystem layer). "Monster VM" approach
being the one where we just keep mounting block volumes to a single VM
with normal non-distributed filesystem and then exporting via NFS/CIFS.
Regards,
Prema
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without
> journals or XFS with barriers disabled.
> The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very
> high risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
>
> Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
> optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
>
> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
> d...@vanderster.com>:
>
>> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
>> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
>> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>>
>> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
>> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
>> if it works for you.
>>
>> -- Dan
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly
>> with the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
>> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data
>> and the compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS
>> directly without local ("proxy") mount.
>> >
>> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly.
>> If using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
>> avoid data corruption.
>> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component
>> less that breaks.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
>> premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used
>> via NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application
>> to
>> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
>> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly
>> ask for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”.
>> Both designs
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Does your use case mean you need something like nfs/cifs and can’t use
CephFS mount directly?
Has been quite a few advances in that area with quotas and user management
in recent versions.
But obviously all depends on your use case at client end.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:51 PM, Premysl Kouril
wrote:
> Some kind of single point will always be there I guess. Because even if we
> go with the distributed filesystem, it will be mounted to the access VM and
> this access VM will be providing NFS/CIFS protocol access. So this machine
> is single point of failure (indeed we would be running two of them for
> active-passive HA setup. In case of distributed filesystem approach the
> failure of the access VM would mean re-mounting the filesystem on the
> passive access VM. In case of "monster VM" approach, in case of the VM
> failure it would mean reattaching all block volumes to a new VM.
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:40 PM Ashley Merrick
> wrote:
>
>> My 2 cents would be depends how H/A you need.
>>
>> Going with the monster VM you have a single point of failure and a single
>> point of network congestion.
>>
>> If you go the CephFS route you remove that single point of failure if you
>> mount to clients directly. And also can remove that single point of network
>> congestion.
>>
>> Guess depends on the performance and uptime required , as I’d say that
>> could factory into your decisions.
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:36 PM, Premysl Kouril
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> I should have also said, that we are internally inclined towards the
>>> "monster VM" approach due to seemingly simpler architecture (data
>>> distribution on block layer rather than on file system layer). So my
>>> original question is more about comparing the two approaches (distribution
>>> on block layer vs distribution on filesystem layer). "Monster VM" approach
>>> being the one where we just keep mounting block volumes to a single VM
>>> with normal non-distributed filesystem and then exporting via NFS/CIFS.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Prema
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>>>
Hi Dan,
ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without
journals or XFS with barriers disabled.
The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very
high risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
Just my 2 cents ;-)
Kevin
Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
d...@vanderster.com>:
> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>
> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
> if it works for you.
>
> -- Dan
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly
> with the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and
> the compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS
> directly without local ("proxy") mount.
> >
> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly.
> If using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
> avoid data corruption.
> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component
> less that breaks.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
> premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used
> via NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application
> to
> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask
> for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
> >>
> >>
> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”.
> Both designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we
> grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access
> virtual
> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
> sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or
> CephFS. We would deploy this softwar
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Some kind of single point will always be there I guess. Because even if we
go with the distributed filesystem, it will be mounted to the access VM and
this access VM will be providing NFS/CIFS protocol access. So this machine
is single point of failure (indeed we would be running two of them for
active-passive HA setup. In case of distributed filesystem approach the
failure of the access VM would mean re-mounting the filesystem on the
passive access VM. In case of "monster VM" approach, in case of the VM
failure it would mean reattaching all block volumes to a new VM.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:40 PM Ashley Merrick
wrote:
> My 2 cents would be depends how H/A you need.
>
> Going with the monster VM you have a single point of failure and a single
> point of network congestion.
>
> If you go the CephFS route you remove that single point of failure if you
> mount to clients directly. And also can remove that single point of network
> congestion.
>
> Guess depends on the performance and uptime required , as I’d say that
> could factory into your decisions.
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:36 PM, Premysl Kouril
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I should have also said, that we are internally inclined towards the
>> "monster VM" approach due to seemingly simpler architecture (data
>> distribution on block layer rather than on file system layer). So my
>> original question is more about comparing the two approaches (distribution
>> on block layer vs distribution on filesystem layer). "Monster VM" approach
>> being the one where we just keep mounting block volumes to a single VM
>> with normal non-distributed filesystem and then exporting via NFS/CIFS.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Prema
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without
>>> journals or XFS with barriers disabled.
>>> The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very high
>>> risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
>>>
>>> Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
>>> optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
>>> d...@vanderster.com>:
>>>
We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
if it works for you.
-- Dan
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly
with the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
> If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and
the compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS
directly without local ("proxy") mount.
>
> I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If
using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
avoid data corruption.
> With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component
less that breaks.
>
> Kevin
>
> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used
via NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to
more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>>
>>
>> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask
for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>>
>>
>> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”.
Both designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we
grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>>
>>
>> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or
CephFS. We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount
the resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>>
>>
>> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So
we would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and
then, via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the
block storage into the a
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
My 2 cents would be depends how H/A you need.
Going with the monster VM you have a single point of failure and a single
point of network congestion.
If you go the CephFS route you remove that single point of failure if you
mount to clients directly. And also can remove that single point of network
congestion.
Guess depends on the performance and uptime required , as I’d say that
could factory into your decisions.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 10:36 PM, Premysl Kouril
wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I should have also said, that we are internally inclined towards the
> "monster VM" approach due to seemingly simpler architecture (data
> distribution on block layer rather than on file system layer). So my
> original question is more about comparing the two approaches (distribution
> on block layer vs distribution on filesystem layer). "Monster VM" approach
> being the one where we just keep mounting block volumes to a single VM
> with normal non-distributed filesystem and then exporting via NFS/CIFS.
>
> Regards,
> Prema
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without
>> journals or XFS with barriers disabled.
>> The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very high
>> risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
>>
>> Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
>> optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
>> d...@vanderster.com>:
>>
>>> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
>>> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
>>> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>>>
>>> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
>>> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
>>> if it works for you.
>>>
>>> -- Dan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly
>>> with the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
>>> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and
>>> the compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS
>>> directly without local ("proxy") mount.
>>> >
>>> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If
>>> using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
>>> avoid data corruption.
>>> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less
>>> that breaks.
>>> >
>>> > Kevin
>>> >
>>> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
>>> premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used
>>> via NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to
>>> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
>>> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask
>>> for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”.
>>> Both designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we
>>> grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
>>> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
>>> sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or
>>> CephFS. We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount
>>> the resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
>>> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we
>>> would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then,
>>> via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block
>>> storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which
>>> would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem
>>> would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>
>>> >> Prema
>>> >>
>>> >> ___
>>> >> ceph-users mailing list
>>> >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > ceph-users mailing list
>>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>
>> ___
>> ceph-users mail
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Hi Kevin,
I should have also said, that we are internally inclined towards the
"monster VM" approach due to seemingly simpler architecture (data
distribution on block layer rather than on file system layer). So my
original question is more about comparing the two approaches (distribution
on block layer vs distribution on filesystem layer). "Monster VM" approach
being the one where we just keep mounting block volumes to a single VM with
normal non-distributed filesystem and then exporting via NFS/CIFS.
Regards,
Prema
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without
> journals or XFS with barriers disabled.
> The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very high
> risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
>
> Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
> optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
>
> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
> d...@vanderster.com>:
>
>> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
>> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
>> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>>
>> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
>> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
>> if it works for you.
>>
>> -- Dan
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly
>> with the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
>> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and
>> the compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS
>> directly without local ("proxy") mount.
>> >
>> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If
>> using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
>> avoid data corruption.
>> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less
>> that breaks.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
>> premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via
>> NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to
>> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
>> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask
>> for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”.
>> Both designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we
>> grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
>> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
>> sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or
>> CephFS. We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount
>> the resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
>> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we
>> would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then,
>> via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block
>> storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which
>> would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem
>> would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Prema
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> ceph-users mailing list
>> >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >
>> > ___
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Hi Dan,
ZFS without sync would be very much identical to ext2/ext4 without journals
or XFS with barriers disabled.
The ARC cache in ZFS is awesome but disbaling sync on ZFS is a very high
risk (using ext4 with kvm-mode unsafe would be similar I think).
Also, ZFS only works as expected with scheduler set to noop as it is
optimized to consume whole, non-shared devices.
Just my 2 cents ;-)
Kevin
Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Dan van der Ster <
d...@vanderster.com>:
> We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
> It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
> sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
>
> But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
> use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
> if it works for you.
>
> -- Dan
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly with
> the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
> > If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and the
> compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS directly
> without local ("proxy") mount.
> >
> > I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If
> using NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to
> avoid data corruption.
> > With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less
> that breaks.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
> premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via
> NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to
> more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage
> for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask for
> any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
> >>
> >>
> >> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”. Both
> designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we grow.
> Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
> sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or
> CephFS. We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount
> the resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
> >>
> >>
> >> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we
> would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then,
> via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block
> storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which
> would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem
> would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
> >>
> >>
> >> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Prema
> >>
> >> ___
> >> ceph-users mailing list
> >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> >
> > ___
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
We've done ZFS on RBD in a VM, exported via NFS, for a couple years.
It's very stable and if your use-case permits you can set zfs
sync=disabled to get very fast write performance that's tough to beat.
But if you're building something new today and have *only* the NAS
use-case then it would make better sense to try CephFS first and see
if it works for you.
-- Dan
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM Kevin Olbrich wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly with the
> ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
> If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and the
> compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS directly
> without local ("proxy") mount.
>
> I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If using
> NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to avoid data
> corruption.
> With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less that
> breaks.
>
> Kevin
>
> Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril
> :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via NFS
>> and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to more
>> “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage for
>> virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>>
>>
>> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask for any
>> thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>>
>>
>> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”. Both
>> designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we grow.
>> Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
>> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this sense
>> the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>>
>>
>> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or CephFS. We
>> would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount the
>> resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
>> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>>
>>
>> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we would
>> build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then, via
>> virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block storage
>> into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which would
>> aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem would
>> be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
>>
>>
>> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Prema
>>
>> ___
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Hi!
ZFS won't play nice on ceph. Best would be to mount CephFS directly with
the ceph-fuse driver on the endpoint.
If you definitely want to put a storage gateway between the data and the
compute nodes, then go with nfs-ganesha which can export CephFS directly
without local ("proxy") mount.
I had such a setup with nfs and switched to mount CephFS directly. If using
NFS with the same data, you must make sure your HA works well to avoid data
corruption.
With ceph-fuse you directly connect to the cluster, one component less that
breaks.
Kevin
Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018 um 12:44 Uhr schrieb Premysl Kouril <
premysl.kou...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via NFS
> and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to more
> “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage for
> virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented.
>
> We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask for
> any thoughts, views, insights, experiences.
>
> Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”. Both
> designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we grow.
> Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual
> machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this
> sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself.
>
> First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or CephFS.
> We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount the
> resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be
> serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS.
>
> Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we
> would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then,
> via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block
> storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which
> would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem
> would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM.
>
>
> Any advices and insights highly appreciated
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Prema
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] Ceph or Gluster for implementing big NAS
Hi, We are planning to build NAS solution which will be primarily used via NFS and CIFS and workloads ranging from various archival application to more “real-time processing”. The NAS will not be used as a block storage for virtual machines, so the access really will always be file oriented. We are considering primarily two designs and I’d like to kindly ask for any thoughts, views, insights, experiences. Both designs utilize “distributed storage software at some level”. Both designs would be built from commodity servers and should scale as we grow. Both designs involve virtualization for instantiating "access virtual machines" which will be serving the NFS and CIFS protocol - so in this sense the access layer is decoupled from the data layer itself. First design is based on a distributed filesystem like Gluster or CephFS. We would deploy this software on those commodity servers and mount the resultant filesystem on the “access virtual machines” and they would be serving the mounted filesystem via NFS/CIFS. Second design is based on distributed block storage using CEPH. So we would build distributed block storage on those commodity servers, and then, via virtualization (like OpenStack Cinder) we would allocate the block storage into the access VM. Inside the access VM we would deploy ZFS which would aggregate block storage into a single filesystem. And this filesystem would be served via NFS/CIFS from the very same VM. Any advices and insights highly appreciated Cheers, Prema ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
