Shared mount point is used to "mount" i.e. attached a shared drive (enclosure, LUN, etc) to the same mount point on multiple KVM hosts and then run a shared file system on top (GFS2, OCFS, etc - all of which are as good as a collective suicide in the long run...)
Stick to local - and you do understand the risk with RADI 0, right? On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:01, Fariborz Navidan <mdvlinqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I managed to use Shared Mount Point to for local primary storage but it > does not allow over-provisioning. I guess direct local storage also does > not allow over-provisioning. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 8:21 PM Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Ceph uses data replicas, so even if you only use 2 replicas (3 is > > recommend), you'd basically have best case of the IO of a single drive. > > You also need to have a minimum of 3 management nodes for Ceph, so > > personally, I'd stick with local storage if you're focused on speed. > > You're also running quite a risk by using RAID-0. A single drive failure > > and you'll lose all of your data. Is there a reason you are using NFS and > > not just direct local storage? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Fariborz Navidan <mdvlinqu...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:36 AM > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <users@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: I/O speed in local NFS vs local Ceph > > > > Hello, > > > > I have a single physical host running CloudStack. Primary storage is > > currently mounted as a NFS share. The underlying filesystem is XFS > > running on top of Linux Soft RAID-0. The underlying hardware consists of > 2 > > SSD-NVMe drives. > > > > The question is that, could I reach faster I/O on VMs if I would use Ceph > > adding 2 physical devices directly to the cluster and expose it via RBD? > > How much could it make the I/O faster? > > > > Thanks > > > -- Andrija Panić
