Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Toby Thain wrote: On 8-Nov-09, at 12:20 PM, Joe Auty wrote: Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org mailto:j...@netmusician.org wrote: ... Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? That's another possibility, but it depends on how Virtualbox stacks up against VMWare Server. At this point a lot of planning would be necessary to switch to something else, although this is possibility. How would Virtualbox stack up against VMWare Server? Last I checked it doesn't have a remote console of any sort, which would be a deal breaker. Can I disable allocating virtual memory to Virtualbox VMs? Can I get my VMs to auto boot in a specific order at runlevel 3? Can I control my VMs via the command line? Yes you certainly can. Works well, even for GUI based guests, as there is vm-level VRDP (VNC/Remote Desktop) access as well as whatever remote access the guest provides. I thought Virtualbox was GUI only, designed for Desktop use primarily? Not at all. Read up on VBoxHeadless. I take it that Virtualbox, being Qemu/KVM based will support 64 bit versions of FreeBSD guests, unlike Xen based solutions? --Toby This switch will only make sense if all of this points to a net positive. --Tim -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org mailto:j...@netmusician.org wrote: I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? That's another possibility, but it depends on how Virtualbox stacks up against VMWare Server. At this point a lot of planning would be necessary to switch to something else, although this is possibility. How would Virtualbox stack up against VMWare Server? Last I checked it doesn't have a remote console of any sort, which would be a deal breaker. Can I disable allocating virtual memory to Virtualbox VMs? Can I get my VMs to auto boot in a specific order at runlevel 3? Can I control my VMs via the command line? I thought Virtualbox was GUI only, designed for Desktop use primarily? This switch will only make sense if all of this points to a net positive. --Tim -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Erik Ableson wrote: Uhhh - for an unmanaged server you can use ESXi for free. Identical server functionality, just requires licenses if you need multiserver features (ie vMotion) How does ESXi w/o vMotion, vSphere, and vCenter server stack up against VMWare Server? My impression was that you need these other pieces to make such an infrastructure useful? Cordialement, Erik Ableson On 8 nov. 2009, at 19:12, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms mailto:t...@cook.ms wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org mailto:j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: It appears that one can get more in the way of features out of VMWare Server for free than with ESX, which is seemingly a hook into buying more VMWare stuff. I've never looked at Sun xVM, in fact I didn't know it even existed, but I do now. Thank you, I will research this some more! The only other variable, I guess, is the future of said technologies given the Oracle takeover? There has been much discussion on how this impacts ZFS, but I'll have to learn how xVM might be affected, if at all. Quite frankly, I wouldn't let that stop you. Even if Oracle were to pull the plug on xVM entirely (not likely), you could very easily just move the VM's back over to *insert your favorite flavor of Linux* or Citrix Xen. Including Unbreakable Linux (Oracle's version of RHEL). I remember now why Xen was a no-go from when I last tested it. I rely on the 64 bit version of FreeBSD for most of my VM guest machines, and FreeBSD only supports running as domU on i386 systems. This is a monkey wrench! Sorry, just thinking outloud here... I have no idea what it supports right now. I can't even find a decent support matrix. Quite frankly, I would (and do) just use a separate server for the fileserver than the vm box. You can get 64bit cpu's with 4GB of ram for awfully cheap nowadays. That should be more than enough for most home workloads. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On 8-Nov-09, at 12:20 PM, Joe Auty wrote: Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org wrote: ... Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? That's another possibility, but it depends on how Virtualbox stacks up against VMWare Server. At this point a lot of planning would be necessary to switch to something else, although this is possibility. How would Virtualbox stack up against VMWare Server? Last I checked it doesn't have a remote console of any sort, which would be a deal breaker. Can I disable allocating virtual memory to Virtualbox VMs? Can I get my VMs to auto boot in a specific order at runlevel 3? Can I control my VMs via the command line? Yes you certainly can. Works well, even for GUI based guests, as there is vm-level VRDP (VNC/Remote Desktop) access as well as whatever remote access the guest provides. I thought Virtualbox was GUI only, designed for Desktop use primarily? Not at all. Read up on VBoxHeadless. --Toby This switch will only make sense if all of this points to a net positive. --Tim -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, besson3c wrote: What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? The main concern here would be if the VM correctly honors all of the cache sync requests (all the way to underlying disk) that zfs needs in order to be reliable. Some VMs are known to cut corners in this area so that they offer more performance. If the VM uses large files on EXT4 then maybe the pool would be lost after a power fail. The chance of success is better if you can give the VM real disk devices to work with. There is also the option to run zfs under Linux via FUSE. I have no idea how well the zfs implementation for FUSE works or if it is well maintained. Benchmarks show that zfs performance under FUSE does not suck nearly as much as one would think. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
My impression was that the ZFS Fuse project was no longer being maintained? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org wrote: I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote: Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? Or use OpenSolaris xVM (Xen) with either qemu img files on zpools for the VMs or zvols. -Ross ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org wrote: I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? That's another possibility, but it depends on how Virtualbox stacks up against VMWare Server. At this point a lot of planning would be necessary to switch to something else, although this is possibility. How would Virtualbox stack up against VMWare Server? Last I checked it doesn't have a remote console of any sort, which would be a deal breaker. Can I disable allocating virtual memory to Virtualbox VMs? Can I get my VMs to auto boot in a specific order at runlevel 3? Can I control my VMs via the command line? I thought Virtualbox was GUI only, designed for Desktop use primarily? This switch will only make sense if all of this points to a net positive. Why are you running VMware server at all if those are your requirements? Nothing in your requirements explain why you would choose something with the overhead of VMware server over ESX. With those requirements, I'd point you at Sun xVM. In any case, while I can't answer all of your questions as I don't use Virtualbox: yes, you can control VM's from the command line. VMware server is designed primarily for Desktop use, hence my confusion with your choice. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:03 AM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org wrote: I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. Why not just convert the VM's to run in virtualbox and run Solaris directly on the hardware? That's another possibility, but it depends on how Virtualbox stacks up against VMWare Server. At this point a lot of planning would be necessary to switch to something else, although this is possibility. How would Virtualbox stack up against VMWare Server? Last I checked it doesn't have a remote console of any sort, which would be a deal breaker. Can I disable allocating virtual memory to Virtualbox VMs? Can I get my VMs to auto boot in a specific order at runlevel 3? Can I control my VMs via the command line? I thought Virtualbox was GUI only, designed for Desktop use primarily? This switch will only make sense if all of this points to a net positive. Why are you running VMware server at all if those are your requirements? Nothing in your requirements explain why you would choose something with the overhead of VMware server over ESX. With those requirements, I'd point you at Sun xVM. In any case, while I can't answer all of your questions as I don't use Virtualbox: yes, you can control VM's from the command line. VMware server is designed primarily for Desktop use, hence my confusion with your choice. It appears that one can get more in the way of features out of VMWare Server for free than with ESX, which is seemingly a hook into buying more VMWare stuff. I've never looked at Sun xVM, in fact I didn't know it even existed, but I do now. Thank you, I will research this some more! The only other variable, I guess, is the future of said technologies given the Oracle takeover? There has been much discussion on how this impacts ZFS, but I'll have to learn how xVM might be affected, if at all. Quite frankly, I wouldn't let that stop you. Even if Oracle were to pull the plug on xVM entirely (not likely), you could very easily just move the VM's back over to *insert your favorite flavor of Linux* or Citrix Xen. Including Unbreakable Linux (Oracle's version of RHEL). --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
From your description, it sounds like you are looking for an independent nas hardware box? In which case using freenas or opensolaris to handle the hardware and present iscsi volumes to your vms, is a pretty simple solution. If your instead looking for one box to handle both data storage and vms, then I would suggest looking into vmware esxi. A vm hosted on esxi can be given full control of certain hardware, which isn't possible on vmware server. Alternatively you could set up an opensolaris dom0 using xVM (Xen), and have the dom0 handle the drives. But this would require more complicated conversion of existing vms, or rebuilding. Or do the same thing with freebsd as your base system. --Original Message-- From: besson3c Sender: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org To: zfs Discuss Subject: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization Sent: Nov 8, 2009 3:03 AM I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: It appears that one can get more in the way of features out of VMWare Server for free than with ESX, which is seemingly a hook into buying more VMWare stuff. I've never looked at Sun xVM, in fact I didn't know it even existed, but I do now. Thank you, I will research this some more! The only other variable, I guess, is the future of said technologies given the Oracle takeover? There has been much discussion on how this impacts ZFS, but I'll have to learn how xVM might be affected, if at all. Quite frankly, I wouldn't let that stop you. Even if Oracle were to pull the plug on xVM entirely (not likely), you could very easily just move the VM's back over to *insert your favorite flavor of Linux* or Citrix Xen. Including Unbreakable Linux (Oracle's version of RHEL). I remember now why Xen was a no-go from when I last tested it. I rely on the 64 bit version of FreeBSD for most of my VM guest machines, and FreeBSD only supports running as domU on i386 systems. This is a monkey wrench! Sorry, just thinking outloud here... I have no idea what it supports right now. I can't even find a decent support matrix. Quite frankly, I would (and do) just use a separate server for the fileserver than the vm box. You can get 64bit cpu's with 4GB of ram for awfully cheap nowadays. That should be more than enough for most home workloads. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Uhhh - for an unmanaged server you can use ESXi for free. Identical server functionality, just requires licenses if you need multiserver features (ie vMotion) Cordialement, Erik Ableson On 8 nov. 2009, at 19:12, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Tim Cook wrote: It appears that one can get more in the way of features out of VMWare Server for free than with ESX, which is seemingly a hook into buying more VMWare stuff. I've never looked at Sun xVM, in fact I didn't know it even existed, but I do now. Thank you, I will research this some more! The only other variable, I guess, is the future of said technologies given the Oracle takeover? There has been much discussion on how this impacts ZFS, but I'll have to learn how xVM might be affected, if at all. Quite frankly, I wouldn't let that stop you. Even if Oracle were to pull the plug on xVM entirely (not likely), you could very easily just move the VM's back over to *insert your favorite flavor of Linux* or Citrix Xen. Including Unbreakable Linux (Oracle's version of RHEL). I remember now why Xen was a no-go from when I last tested it. I rely on the 64 bit version of FreeBSD for most of my VM guest machines, and FreeBSD only supports running as domU on i386 systems. This is a monkey wrench! Sorry, just thinking outloud here... I have no idea what it supports right now. I can't even find a decent support matrix. Quite frankly, I would (and do) just use a separate server for the fileserver than the vm box. You can get 64bit cpu's with 4GB of ram for awfully cheap nowadays. That should be more than enough for most home workloads. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Erik Ableson wrote: Uhhh - for an unmanaged server you can use ESXi for free. Identical server functionality, just requires licenses if you need multiserver features (ie vMotion) How does ESXi w/o vMotion, vSphere, and vCenter server stack up against VMWare Server? My impression was that you need these other pieces to make such an infrastructure useful? VMware server doesn't have vmotion. There is no such thing as vsphere, that's the marketing name for the entire product suite. vCenter is only required for advanced functionality like HA/DPM/DRS that you don't have with VMware server either. Are you just throwing out buzzwords, or do you actually know what they do? --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Simply put ESXi is exactly the same local feature set as ESX server. So you get all of the useful stuff like transparent memory page sharing (memory deduplication), virtual switches with VLAN tagging, and high performance storage I/O. For free. As many copies as you like. But... You will need a vCenter license and then by server (well, by processor) licenses if you want the advanced management features like live migration of running VMs between servers, fault tolerance, guided consolidation etc. Most importantly, ESXi is a bare metal install so you have a proper hypervisor allocating resources instead of a general purpose OS with a Virtualisation application. Cordialement, Erik Ableson On 8 nov. 2009, at 19:43, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote: Erik Ableson wrote: Uhhh - for an unmanaged server you can use ESXi for free. Identical server functionality, just requires licenses if you need multiserver features (ie vMotion) How does ESXi w/o vMotion, vSphere, and vCenter server stack up against VMWare Server? My impression was that you need these other pieces to make such an infrastructure useful? VMware server doesn't have vmotion. There is no such thing as vsphere, that's the marketing name for the entire product suite. vCenter is only required for advanced functionality like HA/DPM/DRS that you don't have with VMware server either. Are you just throwing out buzzwords, or do you actually know what they do? --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Really if your just talking a handful of drives then hardware raid may be the simpilest solution for now. However, I also would be inclided to use seperate nas and vm servers. Even with ecc you can put together a nas box for a few hundred (or use existing hardware), plus what you need for a case, bays and drives. Which is what you'll spend on decent hardware raid. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed -Original Message- From: Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:50:30 To: j...@lentecs.com Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization j...@lentecs.com wrote: From your description, it sounds like you are looking for an independent nas hardware box? In which case using freenas or opensolaris to handle the hardware and present iscsi volumes to your vms, is a pretty simple solution. If your instead looking for one box to handle both data storage and vms, then I would suggest looking into vmware esxi. A vm hosted on esxi can be given full control of certain hardware, which isn't possible on vmware server. Alternatively you could set up an opensolaris dom0 using xVM (Xen), and have the dom0 handle the drives. But this would require more complicated conversion of existing vms, or rebuilding. Or do the same thing with freebsd as your base system. I'm reluctant to go ESX or ESXi due to cost related issues, and what I can get out of the free versions. The other monkey wrench, as I just wrote in another post, is that I run several 64 bit FreeBSD guests which don't support Xen. --Original Message-- From: besson3c Sender: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org To: zfs Discuss Subject: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization Sent: Nov 8, 2009 3:03 AM I'm entertaining something which might be a little wacky, I'm wondering what your general reaction to this scheme might be :) I would like to invest in some sort of storage appliance, and I like the idea of something I can grow over time, something that isn't tethered to my servers (i.e. not direct attach), as I'd like to keep this storage appliance beyond the life of my servers. Therefore, a RAID 5 or higher type setup in a separate 2U chassis is attractive to me. I do a lot of virtualization on my servers, and currently my VM host is running VMWare Server. It seems like the way forward is with software based RAID with sophisticated file systems such as ZFS or BTRFS rather than a hardware RAID card and dumber file system. I really like what ZFS brings to the table in terms of RAID-Z and more, so I'm thinking that it might be smart to skip getting a hardware RAID card and jump into using ZFS. The obvious problem at this point is that ZFS is not available for Linux yet, and BTRFS is not yet ready for production usage. So, I'm exploring some options. One option is to just get that RAID card and reassess all of this when BTRFS is ready, but the other option is the following... What if I were to run a FreeBSD VM and present it several vdisks, format these as ZFS, and serve up ZFS shares through this VM? I realize that I'm getting the sort of userland conveniences of ZFS this way since the host would still be writing to an EXT3/4 volume, but on the other hand perhaps these conveniences and other benefits would be worthwhile? What would I be missing out on, despite no assurances of the same integrity given the underlying EXT3/4 volume? What do you think, would setting up a VM solely for hosting ZFS shares be worth my while as a sort of bridge to BTRFS? I realize that I'd have to allocate a lot of RAM to this VM, I'm prepared to do that. Is this idea retarded? Something you would recommend or do yourself? All of this convenience is pointless if there will be significant problems, I would like to eventually serve production servers this way. Fairly low volume ones, but still important to me. -- Joe Auty NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians http://www.netmusician.org j...@netmusician.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
In terms of capability and preformance, esxi is well above anything your getting from vmware serve, even just using the free utilities. The issues to consider are complexity and hardware support. You shouldn't have a problem with hardware if you do your home work before you buy. However the complexity of what you are trying to accomplish may be more than you want to get into. It is likely still a better solution to go with seperate storage and vms servers. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed -Original Message- From: Tim Cook t...@cook.ms Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:43:59 To: Joe Autyj...@netmusician.org Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.orgzfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID-Z and virtualization
Just to clear out the vmware stuff. ESXi + ZFS I've run production with a thumper 4540, solaris10 (before dedup:) ,48 drives, one pool, NFS through 1 GB to ESX(+ESXi) on dedicated NICs ZFS snapshots always proved to be consistent data to ESX = ESX or ESXi depends on your needs NFS (leaves all filesystem management to your ZFS OS) 1 GB dedicated NIC is enough for operation (peaks, as everything else eg. fiberchannel, when moving data across) ZFS OS could be whatever you prefer (Solaris, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD...) Hope this helps someone ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
