On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:00:21PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: > Chuck wrote: > >> we are completely restructuring our entire physical network around >> the vserver concept. >> it has proven itself in stability and performance in production to >> the point we no longer see the need for dedicated servers except in >> the most demanding instances (mostly our email server which cannot >> be run as a guest until there is no slow down using > 130 ip addresses).
could you describe what scheme is behind those 130 ips in your case? I'm trying to get an idea what addresses such large-ip systems typically use ... >> in our network restructuring, we wish to use our large storage >> nfs system and place all the vserver guests on that sharing those >> directories to be mounted on the proper dual opteron machine front >> end as /vservers. >> i am seriously thinking of also making /etc/vservers an nfs mount so >> that each host configuration and guests live in a particular area on >> the nfs to make switching machines a breeze if so needed. >> does anyone see a problem with this idea? we will be using dual GB >> nics into this nfs system in a pvtnet from each machine to facilitate >> large amounts of data flow. public ip space will still use 100mb >> nics. that is basically what lycos is doing, and together with them we implemented the xid tagging over nfs (requires a patched filer though), which seems to work reasonably fine ... >> if this can work efficiently (most of our guests are not disk i/o >> bound.. those with ultra heavy disk i/o will live on each front end >> machine), we can consolidate more than 100 machines into 2 front end >> machines and one SAN system. This would free enough rack space that >> if we don't need any dedicated >> machines in the future we could easily add more than 1500 servers in >> host/guest config in the same space 100 took up. it would also hugely >> simplify backups and drop our electric bill in half or more. yes, just requires really sensitive tuning, otherwise the nfs will be the bottleneck > Nice idea, certainly NFS is right for /etc/vservers, but consider using > a network block device, like iSCSI or ATA over Ethernet for the > filesystems used by vservers themselves. You'll save yourself a lot of > headaches and the thing will probably run a *lot* faster. this is a viable alternative too, at least iSCSI and AOE was already tested with Linux-VServer, so it should work > Unification would be impractical on top of all of this, but this is > probably not a huge problem. why would that be so? if it is the same block device, the filesystem on-top can as well use unification, not across different filesystems though ... HTH, Herbert > Sam. > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
