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

Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs

  • To: Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:40:26 +0200
  • Cc: yue <ooolinux@xxxxxxx>, Christian Zoffoli <czoffoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:42:20 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=softdux.com; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Assp-ID:X-Assp-Version:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=leFwTaVlsXXwE+Mb5LQP6siTdzt4nyVfIm9FKlnTs6oyhNc5E+G3hBTdGAcaTgiBx/MoiM+ST5tebuBAFwJ5lE9u9U0cJwY+LYaMYHd88y1nQP1Tjmcel8JuB+xqix+3;
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> What do you then do if you want redundancy, between 2 client PC's, i.e
>> similar to RAID1 ?
> Oh well, there are several ways to achieve this, I guess:
> * use dm mirroring on top of clvm (I tested this once personally but did
>  not need it for production then -- will probably look into it some time
>  again).
>  I think this is just the way to go although it might be a little slower
>  than running a raid in domU.
> * Giving two LVs to the virtual machines and let them do the mirroring with
>  software raid.
>  I think this option offers greatest performance while being robust. The
>  only disadvantage I see is that in case of failure you have to recreate
>  all the software raids in your domUs. In some hosting environments this
>  might be an issue.

Why not just give the 2 LV's to the dom0, and raid it on the dom0
instead? The the domU's still use the "local storage" as before and
they won't know about it.

> * Use glusterfs/drbd/... Performancewise and in terms of reliability and
>  stability I do not see any issues here. But to use those you actually do
>  not need a SAN as a backend. A SAN always adds a performance penalty due
>  to an increase of latency. Local storage always has an advantage over SAN
>  in this respect. So in case you plan to use glusterfs, drbd or something
>  like that, you should reconsider the SAN issue. This might save alot of
>  money as well... ;-)

I would prefer not to use DRBD. Every layer you add, adds more
complication at the end of the day.

And we already have this expensive EMC SAN, so I would like to utilize
it somehow, but with better redundancy.

> -- Adi
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532

Xen-users mailing list



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