Hello guys,
presently, i am playing with http://www.gluster.com/ and its volumes, it
will not offer you block level volume access as you are exporting those
with NFS, but the design is allowing you to create highly available
geographically distant storage for files.
If you can live with file based VM`s, give it a try.
r.
Matej Zary wrote:
> More on the bottom of message, Exchange and OWA sucks. :(
> ________________________________________
> From: Rudi Ahlers [Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 26 January 2011 09:55
> To: Matej Zary
> Cc: jg@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Dustin Black; xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matej Zary <matej.zary@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Depends on quality of NAS/SAN device. Some of them are more reliable&robust
>> that rest of the infrastructure (dual controllers, raid6, multipathing
>> etc.), obviously they cost arm&leg. So they SHOULD not totally fail
>> (firmware issues are another thing though). And in that case, even if one
>> owns enterprise grade storage, backups (tape, another storage, remote site)
>> are always must. Yeah, if storage fails, there will be downtime. You can
>> still have locals disks on xen host. So for example you can restore most
>> important Xen guests on the local disks from backups and live without live
>> migration until the NAS/SAN issues are solved.
>>
>> Matej
>> ________________________________________
>
>
> Well, that's the problem. We have (had, soon to be returned) a so
> called "enterprise SAN" with dual everything, but it failed miserably
> during December and we ended up migrating everyone to a few older NAS
> devices just to get the client's websites up again (VPS hosting). So,
> just cause a SAN has dual PSU's, dual controllers, dual NIC's, dual
> HEAD's, etc doesn't mean it's non-redundant.
>
> I'm thinking of setting up 2 independent SAN's, of for that matter
> even NAS clusters, and then doing something like RAID1 (mirror) on the
> client nodes with the iSCSI mounts. But, I don't know if it's feasible
> or worth the effort. Has anyone done something like this ?
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Rudi Ahlers
> SoftDux
>
> Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
> Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
> Office: 087 805 9573
> Cell: 082 554 7532
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, that sucks. We are in similar situation storage vise, we have HP
> XP24000 (made by Hitachi) with midrange IBM Dseries extending the capacity.
> And if the XP fails, we are screwed, even though we have all needed backups
> on tapes - we run VMware ESX (not my choice :D) in this datacenter, but the
> HW resources (blade servers) doesn't offer enough local disk capacity to run
> the VMs locally in catastrophic scenario.
>
> Solution can be "enterprise" NAS/SAN redundancy. Some of the enterprise
> storage devices can be onlince synced with another even in another distant
> geographical location (e.g NetApp, our XP offers something a bit similar
> IIRC). Sure it has performance hit, but whats worse, it cost shitload of
> money, so it's out of the question in most cases. :/
>
> Matej
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home