I've been happy with glusterfs. for a sharedmountpoint kind of storage. Works great.
(Note: invested in Infiniband to make things fast) On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Musayev, Ilya <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: > I've seen several folks build their own storage clusters and use Nexenta. > > We use EMC VMAX. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] >> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:52 PM >> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: What's everyone using for primary storage? >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Kirk Jantzer <kirk.jant...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > For my testing, because of available resources, I chose local storage. >> > However, shared storage (like GlusterFS or the like) is appealing. >> > What are you using? Why did you chose what you're using? How many >> > instances are you running? etc. >> > Thanks!! >> >> So I think it depends on workload and use case. >> If your applications are highly fault tolerant and largely stateless, you >> simply >> may not care about HA. Besides you'll almost certainly get better >> performance with local storage. >> If you are running a test/dev environment, you can probably tolerate >> instance failure, so why use shared storage. >> If people are going to come scream at you and threaten to take money away >> if something fails, perhaps you want something a bit more robust. >> >> The best of both worlds (with plenty of compromises too) is distributed, >> replicated shared storage like Ceph RBD. (GlusterFS 3.4, with all of the work >> that IBM has done around KVM is promising, but yet to be released. Early >> versions were robust, but had problems at any scale providing decent IO) >> Sheepdog is also promising and I keep hearing there are patches incoming for >> Sheepdog support. Of course these are all KVM-only for the moment. >> >> There are also plenty of people who do both local and shared storage. >> With higher internal costs for deploying to shared storage with the >> assumption that folks would do it for things that need a higher level of >> resiliency or less tolerance for failure. >> >> For shared storage, I've seen everything from NFS running on Linux to things >> like Isilon, Netapp, and EMC - again the choice depending on the tolerance >> for failure. >> >> --David > >
