Hi Rubens, Thank you for your feedback. Right now, we are not so happy with Xen in terms of stability, upgrade process and HA.
Moving to KVM is an important decision to us, as it makes big changes to our daily operations, but if it improved stability and performances, then we'll do. Does anyone have any feedback for instances backup using kvm ? In Xen world, we had many options to perform live and incremental backup (backup solutions such as PHD, XenOrchestra, scripts using Snapshots, etc.). About the snapshots, is the freeze behavior expected ? Does it means that each user performing snapshot will get his instance freezed during the snapshot ? if so, this is a huge issue, isnt'it ? Thanks all. --- Grégoire Lamodière T/ + 33 6 76 27 03 31 F/ + 33 1 75 43 89 71 -----Message d'origine----- De : Rubens Malheiro [mailto:rubens.malhe...@gmail.com] Envoyé : jeudi 6 juillet 2017 17:10 À : users@cloudstack.apache.org Objet : Re: Network architecture I'll give you an opniao excuse my English I use Translate. I recently moved a whole pod with 6 Xen machines to KVM I'll say it was much quieter and seems to be more stable on both Windows and Vms in LINUX But it is necessary to convert the machines in vhd to qcow before deploying. Works well. What is really bad are the snapshoots that can be enabled in CLOUDSTACK but it takes time and the VM is frozen. I had to migrate XEN because no version recognizes my new 10GB cards Sorry, my english is more of an opinion. On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Grégoire Lamodière <g.lamodi...@dimsi.fr> wrote: > Dear Paul / Remi, > > Thank you for your feedback and the bounding advice. > We'll go on this direction. > > @Remi, you are right about KVM. > Right now, we still use XenServer because Snapshots and backup solutions. > If KVM does the job properly, we might make a try on this new zone. > Do you have any feedback migrating instances from a xenserver zone to > a kvm zone ? (should we only un-install xentools, export vm as > template and download in the new zone ? Or is it a more complexe > process ?) > > Thanks again. > > --- > Grégoire Lamodière > T/ + 33 6 76 27 03 31 > F/ + 33 1 75 43 89 71 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Paul Angus [mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com] Envoyé : mercredi 5 > juillet 2017 21:05 À : users@cloudstack.apache.org Objet : RE: Network > architecture > > Hi Grégoire, > > With those NICs (and without any other background). I'd go with > bonding your 1G NICs together and your 10G NICs together, put primary > and secondary storage over the 10G. Mgmt traffic is minimal and > spread over all of your hosts, so would be public traffic, so these > would be fine over the bonded 1Gbs links. Finally guest traffic, this > would normally be fine over the 1Gb links, especially if you throttle > the traffic a little, unless you know that you'll have especially high guest > traffic. > > > > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grégoire Lamodière [mailto:g.lamodi...@dimsi.fr] > Sent: 04 July 2017 21:15 > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Network architecture > > Dear All, > > In the process of implementing a new CS advanced zone (4.9.2), I am > wondering about the best network architecture to implement. > Any idea / advice would be highly appreciated. > > 1/ Each host has 4 networks adapters, 2 x 1 Gbe, 2 x 10 Gbe 2/ The PR > Store is nfs based 10 Gbe 3/ The sec Store is nfs based 10 Gbe 4/ > Maximum network offering is 1 Gbit to Internet 5/ Hypervisor Xen 7 6/ > Hardware Hp Blade c7000 > > Right now, my choice would be : > > 1/ Bound the 2 gigabit networks cards and use the bound for mgmt + > public 2/ Use 1 10Gbe for storage network (operations on sec Store) 3/ > Use 1 10 Gbe for guest traffic (and pr store traffic by design) > > This architecture sounds good in terms of performance (using 10 Gbe > where it makes sense, redundancy on mgmt + public with bound). > > Another option would be to bound the 2 10 Gbe interfaces, and use Xen > Label to manage Storage and guest on the same physical network. This > choice would give us faileover on storage and guest traffic, but I am > wondering if performances would be badly affected. > > Do you have any feedback on this ? > > Thanks all. > > Best Regards. > > --- > Grégoire Lamodière > T/ + 33 6 76 27 03 31 > F/ + 33 1 75 43 89 71 > > >
