Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
I see Ceph as the most unified storage solution for OpenStack. We're starting to use it for Cinder, and are currently using it for Glance and Nova. We haven't used Swift for the 2.5 years we've been running, but since we have recently deployed Ceph for these other uses will do plan on rolling out access to the objectstore, probably through a Swift interface though that's currently TBD we do have a current use case so it is near the top of our queue. Ceph storage backend for ephemeral nova instances is something no one else seems to have mentioned but we find it a huge help. If you have a RAW image in glance's ceph rbd backend and use the ceph rbd backend for your nova instances these will be copy on write clones of the glance image. This makes for very fast instance startup and efficient use of storage. Regardless of if you have the CoW stuff plumbed together the rbd storage does permit easily live migration (even if /var/lib/nova which holds the libvirt.xml definition of th instance is not on shared storage) As a caveat this copy on write image creation requires a patched version of nova in Icehouse (which I've been running in production a couple months). These were meant to land in the released version of Juno but I haven't yet personally verified that they have. On the block storage side Ceph passed LVM (the default driver) in the most recent user survey as the most used Cinder driver (see http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-user-survey-insights-november-2014 ). This means that part is well exercised and if you do run into any issues there should be plenty of people. While I'm happy thus far with Ceph, I encourage you to consider your needs for each component and be sure a single choice will fit for you. This is especially true if you have geographic distribution. Ceph's synchronous replication can be an issue in that case I hear (It is not my case so IDK) . -Jon On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Joe Topjian j...@topjian.net wrote: Gluster indeed provides both block and object storage. We use the Gluster Cinder driver in production and, short of some initial hiccups, it's been running great. I have no experience with Gluster's object storage support, though, so I can't give an opinion about it -- just confirmation that it exists. :) My personal opinion is to just use Swift for object storage. Sure you won't have the whole unified storage thing going on, but you'll get Swift. :) On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jesse Pretorius jesse.pretor...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh zabolza...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference between them... - Which one is better support in openstack? - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)? I don't think that Gluster or Sheepdog provide a storage back-end capable of providing block storage (cinder) and object storage (swift) back-ends. Only Ceph provides a properly unified back-end for both. Ceph has also been supported for cinder for over two years - it's very mature. The Rados Gateway (Object Storage/Swift Interface) is much more recent, but I have yet to see problems with it - as long as you do acknowledge that it is not Swift. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
Hello there, I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project itself, but want to know what is the real difference between them when used as glance, swift and cinder storage backend? Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
I personally find Ceph to be the most mature project and more easily scalable. El 06/11/2014 13:40, Hossein Zabolzadeh zabolza...@gmail.com escribió: Hello there, I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project itself, but want to know what is the real difference between them when used as glance, swift and cinder storage backend? Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference between them... - Which one is better support in openstack? - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)? On 11/6/14, Adrián Norte Fernández adr...@bashlines.com wrote: I personally find Ceph to be the most mature project and more easily scalable. El 06/11/2014 13:40, Hossein Zabolzadeh zabolza...@gmail.com escribió: Hello there, I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project itself, but want to know what is the real difference between them when used as glance, swift and cinder storage backend? Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh zabolza...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference between them... - Which one is better support in openstack? - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)? I don't think that Gluster or Sheepdog provide a storage back-end capable of providing block storage (cinder) and object storage (swift) back-ends. Only Ceph provides a properly unified back-end for both. Ceph has also been supported for cinder for over two years - it's very mature. The Rados Gateway (Object Storage/Swift Interface) is much more recent, but I have yet to see problems with it - as long as you do acknowledge that it is not Swift. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] OpenStack Storage Backend: Sheepdog, Ceph, or GlusterFS
Thanks Jesse, But about sheepdog, I saw a presenation of sheepdog and openstack integration. In this presentation, it is claimed that sheepdog is unified storage backend for swift, cinder and glance. Check the attachment. See: https://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-hong-kong-2013/session-videos/presentation/sheepdog-yet-another-all-in-one-storage-for-openstack Presentation Title: Yet Another All-In-One Storage for Openstack On 11/7/14, Jesse Pretorius jesse.pretor...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh zabolza...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference between them... - Which one is better support in openstack? - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)? I don't think that Gluster or Sheepdog provide a storage back-end capable of providing block storage (cinder) and object storage (swift) back-ends. Only Ceph provides a properly unified back-end for both. Ceph has also been supported for cinder for over two years - it's very mature. The Rados Gateway (Object Storage/Swift Interface) is much more recent, but I have yet to see problems with it - as long as you do acknowledge that it is not Swift. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
