[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs
use lun directly, if vms are difficult to be controlled
like live migration,backup,.....change vmto template,and template to vm??
thanks. adi
At 2011-01-27 18:09:54，"Rudi Ahlers" <Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Il 26/01/2011 17:07, yue ha scritto:
>>> > yes, there has no a good silution.
>>> > 1.san+gfs2(ocfs2)
>>> > 2.san+clvm
>>> > 3san+clvm+gfs2(ocfs2)
>>> > 4san+normal filesystem, ext3.....
>>> > which has the better performance?
>>>
>>> 4 if your SAN exports as many luns as your VM disks
>>>
>>> 2 is better IMHO ...more flexible, not so high overhead
>> 100% ACK. The best thing about this: There is no overhead in using CLVM:
>> The cluster locking is only required when modifying LVs. For the rest of
>> the time performance is (most probably) slightly better than when using
>> LUNs directly because LVM will take care of readahead dynamically.
>>
>> -- Adi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>How would you do this?
>
>Export LUN1 from SAN1 & LUN1 from SAN2 to the same client PC, and then
>setup cLVM on top of the 2 LUN's?
>
>What do you then do if you want redundancy, between 2 client PC's, i.e
>similar to RAID1 ?
>
>
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Rudi Ahlers
>SoftDux
>
>Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
>Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
>Office: 087 805 9573
>Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
