There was a post earlier with similar setup details http://www.mail-archive.com/users@lists.opennebula.org/msg05546.html
About the performance I think their FAQ has some answers http://www.moosefs.org/moosefs-faq.html The problem with moosefs is mds is your single point of failure HTH Ranga On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Marshall Grillos <mgril...@optimalpath.com>wrote: > Thanks for the update and information.**** > > ** ** > > What about the possibility of using a distributed file system (say MooseFS > and ucarp for HA) and designating each front-end/controller host as a chunk > server?**** > > ** ** > > In that setup, there would only be 2 chunk servers, each with a large > array attached. Would the file system remain intact if one chunk server > failed (given the “goal” value was set at 2 or greater) or do you really > need additional chunk servers for fault-tolerance to function? **** > > ** ** > > What about the performance of MooseFS across 2 chunk servers with large > disk arrays (attached as outlined below utilizing 10GbE)? Does it perform > well (we will be using SATA drives in a Raid 10 configuration)?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > Marshall**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Ranga Chakravarthula [mailto:rb...@hexagrid.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:08 PM > > *To:* Marshall Grillos > *Cc:* users@lists.opennebula.org > *Subject:* Re: [one-users] Shared File System HA**** > > ** ** > > It is plain nfsclient to nfsserver behavior. Hypervisor is just acting as > NFS client. The OS of the VM is caching the writes in memory and > periodically writing to Hard disk. During the failover the NFS client will > continue to try to write but will fail if it cannot connect to the NFS > server before the timeout happens. If connection is re-established, all the > writes will go thru. > > You need to see the NFS options**** > > *timeo > retrans > retry***** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Marshall Grillos < > mgril...@optimalpath.com> wrote:**** > > In my design I’m looking at having the shared storage attached to the > front-end server and provide full redundancy for both the front-end and the > image repository. This would then be shared to each compute node via NFS. > **** > > **** > > StorageArray1 ---DAS--->FrontEnd1---10gb Eth---->BladeChassis1**** > > |**** > > |**** > > DRDB/Heartbeat/Pacemaker (between FrontEnd nodes)**** > > |**** > > |**** > > StorageArray2 ---DAS--->FrontEnd2---10gb Eth----> BladeChassis1**** > > **** > > I planned on setting up an active/passive cluster for two front-end > servers. These would have completely separate storage arrays (potentially > in separate data centers). Using DRBD (I’m open to other solutions if they > provide faster failover) the image repository would be mirrored between the > storage devices. In the event of any hardware failure > (NIC/Controller/Power etc) a full failover would occur from Frontend1 to > Frontend2 propagating the cluster IP address.**** > > **** > > With this setup, there would be a lag time for the heartbeat/pacemaker to > detect the failover and the failover to occur (possibly upwards of 30 > seconds). What will happen to the running VMs when the failover is > performed? Is the computing node hypervisor “smart” enough to handle a > several second NFS outage?**** > > **** > > I’m definitely open to other solutions GlusterFS etc if they provide a > smoother failover transition given my existing hardware configuration.**** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > Marshall **** > > **** > > *From:* Ranga Chakravarthula [mailto:rb...@hexagrid.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:57 AM > *To:* Marshall Grillos > *Cc:* users@lists.opennebula.org > *Subject:* Re: [one-users] Shared File System HA**** > > **** > > If you are looking at HA at storage level, it would be better you have > Heartbeat/Failover on the NFS resource than failing over to secondary > front-end server. Anyway your NFS is mounted on the compute nodes and if > one storage goes down, heartbeat will failover to another storage. Your > frontend doesn't have to part of this.**** > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Marshall Grillos < > mgril...@optimalpath.com> wrote:**** > > I am debating the differences between Shared and Non-shared file systems > for an OpenNebula deployment.**** > > **** > > One concern with the shared file system is High Availability. I am > setting up the OpenNebula front-end with connectivity to a storage device. > To avoid the event of a storage device failure (RAID controller, Power, > etc) I am looking into setting up a secondary front-end server with > attached storage. I would use NFS to share the storage to each VM Host and > setup DRDB for block level replication between each cluster node. In the > event of a storage failure, a failover would occur utilizing > heartbeat/pacemaker to the secondary front-end server.**** > > **** > > If anyone has tested a similar setup how do the VMs handle the minimal > outage required for the failover to occur (the several seconds required to > failover to the secondary front-end)? For a certain duration, wouldn’t the > NFS mount be unavailable due to the failover mechanism?**** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > Marshall**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opennebula.org > http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org**** > > **** > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opennebula.org > http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org**** > > ** ** >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opennebula.org http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org