[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs

  • To: "Fajar A. Nugraha" <fajar@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jia Rao <rickenrao@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:28:02 -0400
  • Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:28:53 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=uJ5eVH8rbCmyBNxLTeNLlJgIpBzk2+VElF2IgqXFqwrGA8q7GuYFDl2xlp0wQ6+CCH zeK5WNE92CWT8i4/bhBOJBcGaMlT2daUIOwhyUdjpRHscfQu9LbBTwHRJICzpY10d9Vv MJvFi0NwjzCXlEu0VEcKDmZzjEyRDG0icjIJ4=
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>

dm-ioband seems to work with the new kernels (2.6.31). We are still using and reluctant to upgrade to a new kernel.
Can dm-ioband work with older kernels?


On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Jia Rao<rickenrao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I prefer the second approach because I need tapdisk (each virtual disk is a
> process in host machines) to control the IO priority among VMs.

You can still control IO priority for block device using dm-ioband.

As for iscsi or nfs, the general rule would be that nfs is easier, but
you need a high-performance nfs server to get decent performance
(NetApp comes to mind).

If you've already tried nfs and not satisfied with its performance,
then you shoud try iscsi. Each domU storage exported as a block
device, imported on dom0 ,and use /dev/disk/by-path/* in domU config.
It should give simple-enough (e.g. no cluster fs required) setup,
decent performance, and it's still possible to control disk I/O
priority and bandwitdh.


Xen-users mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.