Re: [Xen-users] High Number of VMs

[Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/14/11 10:11, Christian Motschke wrote:
> Am 13.09.2011 um 17:31 schrieb John Madden:
>
> > > Any advantage on using large luns+LVM instead of independent LUNs
> > > appart from snapshots? (according to Novell support LVM on top of LVM
> > > is a bad thing...). I remember reading that Xen itself implements some
> > > kind of locking...
> > I think easier management is the key.  If you're already managing the SAN and 
> > assigning LUNs to your boxen, then managing multipath.conf across your cluster, 
> > it's nice to only do that 4 times for a couple TB rather than once for each VM, 
> > for example.
> I just want to add, what the iscsi-SCST guys suggest (from 
> http://scst.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/scst/trunk/iscsi-scst/README?revision=3852&view=markup)
>
> 4. If you are going to use your target in an VM environment, for
> instance as a shared storage with VMware, make sure all your VMs
> connected to the target via *separate* sessions, i.e. each VM has own
> connection to the target, not all VMs connected using a single
> connection. You can check it using SCST proc or sysfs interface. If you
> miss it, you can greatly loose performance of parallel access to your
> target from different VMs. This isn't related to the case if your VMs
> are using the same shared storage, like with VMFS, for instance. In this
> case all your VM hosts will be connected to the target via separate
> sessions, which is enough.
Hi,

would this translate into using a seperate iSCSI target for each VM 
versus a seperate iSCSI LUN?
thx,


B.

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