WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Shared Storage

To: John Madden <jmadden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Shared Storage
From: Jonathan Tripathy <jonnyt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:54:58 +0100
Cc: "xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Dye <jdye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:56:34 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DB576AD.8080203@xxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1162000549.239932.1303675286200.JavaMail.root@mail> <4DB48268.3080602@xxxxxxxxxx> <46C13AA90DB8844DAB79680243857F0F0AFFF2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DB576AD.8080203@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 Thunderbird/3.0.11

On 25/04/2011 14:27, John Madden wrote:
On 04/24/2011 04:24 PM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
Well, I'm very familiar with LVM and shrinking and extending LVs and
filesystems. Been doing this for ages.

I would like to use openfiler, however I'd like to script this, so maybe
Linux is still the best option?

And just to confirm, Linux iSCSI will be ok with hundreds of LUNs?
Assume network and spindle hardware is ok.

If you can serve the LUNs to the box, you'll be fine. But keep in mind the 256-per-target/channel limit inherent to SCSI. And why you'd want to manage hundreds of disks instead of hundreds of LV's is beyond me -- management at the LVM layer is a lot easier than duplicating the work of disk labeling, multipathing, etc.

Oh, and with hundreds of VMs, the spindle will always be your bottleneck.

John

Hi John,

I would honestly prefer to manage hundred of LVs instead of hundreds of LUNs. I'm just concerned about the iSCSI bottleneck (if any) if I were to create an LVM VG using a single iSCSI LUN for about 50 - 100 LVs. Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>