Interesting, which files did you modify to lower the log levels?
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:38 AM, <combus...@archlinux.us> wrote: > One word of caution so far, when exporting any vm, the node that acts as SPM > is stressed out to the max. I releived the stress by a certain margin with > lowering libvirtd and vdsm log levels to WARNING. That shortened out the > export procedure by at least five times. But vdsm process on the SPM node is > still with high cpu usage so it's best that the SPM node should be left with a > decent CPU time amount to spare. Also, export of VM's with high vdisk capacity > and thin provisioning enabled (let's say 14GB used of 100GB defined) took > around 50min over a 10Gb ethernet interface to a 1Gb export NAS device that > was not stressed out at all by other processes. When I did that export with > debug log levels it took 5hrs :( > > So lowering log levels is a must in production enviroment. I've deleted the > lun that I exported on the storage (removed it first from ovirt) and for the > next weekend I am planing to add a new one, export it again on all the nodes > and start a few fresh vm installations. Things I'm going to look for are > partition alignment and running them from different nodes in the cluster at > the same time. I just hope that not all I/O is going to pass through the SPM, > this is the one thing that bothers me the most. > > I'll report back on these results next week, but if anyone has experience with > this kind of things or can point to some documentation would be great. > > On Monday, 2. June 2014. 18.51.52 you wrote: >> I'm curious to hear what other comments arise, as we're analyzing a >> production setup shortly. >> >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:11 PM, <combus...@archlinux.us> wrote: >> > I need to scratch gluster off because setup is based on CentOS 6.5, so >> > essential prerequisites like qemu 1.3 and libvirt 1.0.1 are not met. >> >> Gluster would still work with EL6, afaik it just won't use libgfapi and >> instead use just a standard mount. >> >> > Any info regarding FC storage domain would be appreciated though. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Ivan >> > >> > On Sunday, 1. June 2014. 11.44.33 combus...@archlinux.us wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I have a 4 node cluster setup and my storage options right now are a FC >> >> based storage, one partition per node on a local drive (~200GB each) and >> >> a >> >> NFS based NAS device. I want to setup export and ISO domain on the NAS >> >> and >> >> there are no issues or questions regarding those two. I wasn't aware of >> >> any >> >> other options at the time for utilizing a local storage (since this is a >> >> shared based datacenter) so I exported a directory from each partition >> >> via >> >> NFS and it works. But I am little in the dark with the following: >> >> >> >> 1. Are there any advantages for switching from NFS based local storage to >> >> a >> >> Gluster based domain with blocks for each partition. I guess it can be >> >> only >> >> performance wise but maybe I'm wrong. If there are advantages, are there >> >> any tips regarding xfs mount options etc ? >> >> >> >> 2. I've created a volume on the FC based storage and exported it to all >> >> of >> >> the nodes in the cluster on the storage itself. I've configured >> >> multipathing correctly and added an alias for the wwid of the LUN so I >> >> can >> >> distinct this one and any other future volumes more easily. At first I >> >> created a partition on it but since oVirt saw only the whole LUN as raw >> >> device I erased it before adding it as the FC master storage domain. I've >> >> imported a few VM's and point them to the FC storage domain. This setup >> >> works, but: >> >> >> >> - All of the nodes see a device with the alias for the wwid of the >> >> volume, >> >> but only the node wich is currently the SPM for the cluster can see >> >> logical >> >> volumes inside. Also when I setup the high availability for VM's residing >> >> on the FC storage and select to start on any node on the cluster, they >> >> always start on the SPM. Can multiple nodes run different VM's on the >> >> same >> >> FC storage at the same time (logical thing would be that they can, but I >> >> wanted to be sure first). I am not familiar with the logic oVirt utilizes >> >> that locks the vm's logical volume to prevent corruption. >> >> >> >> - Fdisk shows that logical volumes on the LUN of the FC volume are >> >> missaligned (partition doesn't end on cylindar boundary), so I wonder if >> >> this is becuase I imported the VM's with disks that were created on local >> >> storage before and that any _new_ VM's with disks on the fc storage would >> >> be propperly aligned. >> >> >> >> This is a new setup with oVirt 3.4 (did an export of all the VM's on 3.3 >> >> and after a fresh installation of the 3.4 imported them back again). I >> >> have room to experiment a little with 2 of the 4 nodes because currently >> >> they are free from running any VM's, but I have limited room for >> >> anything else that would cause an unplanned downtime for four virtual >> >> machines running on the other two nodes on the cluster (currently highly >> >> available and their drives are on the FC storage domain). All in all I >> >> have 12 VM's running and I'm asking on the list for advice and guidance >> >> before I make any changes. >> >> >> >> Just trying to find as much info regarding all of this as possible before >> >> acting upon. >> >> >> >> Thank you in advance, >> >> >> >> Ivan >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Users mailing list >> > Users@ovirt.org >> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users