On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Peter Van Biesen
<peter.vanbiesen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Both.
>
> Degradation is inherent to the concept of shared storage. Either you trust the
in this case the degradation isn't because the storage is shared; it's
because of the sync mechanisms to avoid stepping on the other
machine's toes. And there's a world of difference between locking to
access the volume partition (CLVM/EVMS-ha) and locking at file level
(GFS/OCFS).
> I simply do not see the added value of using a clustered filesystem for a
> domu. And in that light, any additional overhead is too much. Why make things
totally agree
but i don't find CLVM overhead any worse than LVM alone. i asked
because you seemed to advise against it, and wanted to know if that's
because of specific experience, or just against cluster filesystems.
> Lastly, I really don't see the $/GB argument. A GB cost the same, although
> its a bit slower on a clustered filesystem, that's all.
several not-so-big boxes with OpenFiler are A LOT cheaper than
comparable capacity NetApp settings. the only drawback is that you
can't join/partition/migrate between boxes without help from the
block-client boxes, thus using CLVM.
> Peter.
> Ps: nice line-up of acronyms, btw 8-)
yep, OTOH, TANSTAAFL, so a11y and r9y are way down, AFAICT :-P
--
Javier
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home