On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ivan Rodriguez <[email protected]>
wrote:
> We are using ZFS, with jbod, not in production yet exporting NFS
to
> cloudstack, I'm not really happy about the performance
> but I think is related to the hardware itself rather than
technology, we
> are using intel SR2625UR and Intel 320 SSD, we were evaluating
gluster as
> well, but we decided to move away from that path since gluster nfs
is
still
> performing poorly, plus we would like to see cloudstack
integrating the
> gluster-fuse module, we haven't decided the final storage setup
but at
the
> moment we had better results with ZFS.
>
>
question is whos ZFS and have you "tweaked" the zfs / nfs config for
performance
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Nik Martin
<[email protected]
>wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 05:49 PM, Trevor Francis wrote:
>>
>>> ZFS looks really interesting to me and I am leaning that way. I
am
>>> considering using FreeNAS, as people seem to be having good luck
with
>>> it. Can anyone weigh in here?
>>>
>>>
>> My personal opinion, I think FreeNAS and OpenFiler have horrible,
horrible
>> User Interfaces - not very intuitive, and they both seem to be
file
servers
>> with things like iSCSI targets tacked on as an afterthought.
>>
>> Nik
>>
>>
>>> Trevor Francis
>>> Partner
>>> 46 Labs | The PeerEdge Cloud
>>> http://www.46labs.com <http://www.46labs.com/> |
http://www.peeredge.net
>>> <http://www.peeredge.net/>
>>> 405-362-0046 - Voice | 405-410-4980 - Cell
>>> trevorgfrancis - Skype
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Solutions Provider for the Telecom Industry
>>>
>>> <http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge
<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>><
>>> http://www.twitter.**com/peeredge
<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>><
>>> http://www.**twitter.com/peeredge
<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>><
>>> http://**www.facebook.com/PeerEdge
<http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Jason Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> ZFS would be an interesting setup as you can do the cache pools
like
you
>>>> would do in CacheCade. The problem with ZFS or CacheCade+DRBD
is that
>>>> they
>>>> really don't scale out well if you are looking for something
with a
>>>> unified
>>>> name space. I'll say however that ZFS is a battle hardened FS
with
tons
>>>> of
>>>> shops using it. A lot of the whiz-bang SSD+SATA disk SAN things
these
>>>> smaller start up companies are hocking are just ZFS appliances.
>>>>
>>>> RBD looks interesting but I'm not sure if I would be willing to
put
>>>> production data on it, I'm not sure how performant it is IRL.
From a
>>>> purely technical perspective, it looks REALLY cool.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose anything is fast if you put SSDs in it :) GlusterFS
is
another
>>>> option although historically small/random IO has not been it's
strong
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> If you are ok spending money on software and want a scale out
block
>>>> storage
>>>> then you might want to consider HP LeftHand's VSA product. I am
>>>> personally
>>>> partial to NFS plays:) I went the exact opposite approach and
settled
on
>>>> Isilon for our primary storage for our CS deployment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Nik Martin
<[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:nik.martin@nfinausa.**com
<[email protected]>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2012 10:16 AM, Trevor Francis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We are looking at building a Primary Storage solution for an
>>>>>> enterprise/carrier class application. However, we want to
build it
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> a FOSS solution and not a commercial solution. Do you have a
>>>>>> recommendation on platform?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trevor,
>>>>>
>>>>> I got EXCELLENT results builing a SAN from FOSS using:
>>>>> OS: Centos
>>>>> Hardware: 2X storage servers, with 12x2TB 3.5 SATA drives.
LSI
MegaRAID
>>>>> with CacheCade Pro, with 240 GB Intel 520 SSDs configured to
do SSD
>>>>> caching
>>>>> (alternately, look at FlashCache from Facebook)
>>>>> intel 10GB dual port nics, one port for crossover, on port for
up
link
>>>>> to
>>>>> storage network
>>>>>
>>>>> DRBD for real time block replication to active-active
>>>>> Pacemaker+corosync for HA Resource management
>>>>> tgtd for iSCSI target
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want file backed storage, XFS is a very good filesystem
on
Linux
>>>>> now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pacemaker+Corosync can be difficult to grok at the beginning,
but
that
>>>>> setup gave me a VERY high performance SAN. The downside is it
is
>>>>> entirely
>>>>> managed by CLI, no UI whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Francis
>>>>>> Partner
>>>>>> 46 Labs | The PeerEdge Cloud
>>>>>> http://www.46labs.com <http://www.46labs.com/> |
>>>>>> http://www.peeredge.net
>>>>>> <http://www.peeredge.net/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 405-362-0046 - Voice | 405-410-4980 - Cell
>>>>>> trevorgfrancis - Skype
>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:
[email protected]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Solutions Provider for the Telecom Industry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/****peeredge<
http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge><
>>>>>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge
<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge
>>><
>>>>>> http://www.twitter.**com/**peeredge <
http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge>
>>>>>> >><
>>>>>> http://www.**twitter.com/**peeredge
<http://twitter.com/peeredge> <
>>>>>> http://www.twitter.com/**peeredge
<http://www.twitter.com/peeredge
>>><
>>>>>> http://**www.facebook.com/**PeerEdge<
http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge><
>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/**PeerEdge <
http://www.facebook.com/PeerEdge>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
