[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-users] iSCSI and LVM

  • To: Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Serge Fonville <serge.fonville@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:03:27 +0200
  • Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jonathan Tripathy <jonnyt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:05:19 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=ekYFk7EweHDPQjUmxBuJ0O/fjDXfnPmk1UFg0g5hT04/yJClI3JyitTbpYYiohjNNf SC8IhEgBUAHRrG8B/26iQXYg6UauaYPr/fTWodeUVVDyk2RX30POJNBTTGyk3QZWCQV8 qj88qdoaLJYdxIEHWLHTZZyrtKChJPiGy3iqE=
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>

>> LVM over NFS is not possible.
>> LVM needs to be applied to a blockdevice
>> Fortunately, you can sitll use LVM on the storage server.
>> NFS is often considered slower, due to that it adds an additional
>> layer to the communication.
>> This does not necessarily negatively impact the performance in such a
>> way that it should be considered a deal-breaker.
>> If you expect to constantly utilize over 70% of your bandwidth, you
>> may be better of using iSCSI.
>> Then again, if you are utilizing that much, you should probably
>> rethink your setup.
>> since I currently know very little about your expected load.
>> I can not give you a definitive answer.
>> But looking into using NFS for your VMs should at least be looked in
>> to thoroughy.
> I suppose NFS requires image based access, which I understand is less
> performant.
you may also find



Serge Fonville


Convince Google!!
They need to support Adsense over SSL

Xen-users mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.