I use ZFS over VOD because I’m more familiar with it and it suites my use case better. I got similar results from performance tests, with VOD outperforming writes slight and ZFS outperforming reads. That was before I added some ZIL and cache to my ZFS disks, too. I also don’t like that you have to specify estimated sizes with VOD for compression, I prefer the ZFS approach. Don’t forget to set the appropriate zfs attributes, the parts of the Gluster doc with those are still valid.
Few more comments inline: > On Apr 16, 2019, at 5:09 PM, Cody Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey folks. > > I’m looking to deploy GlusterFS to host some VMs. I’ve done a lot of reading > and would like to implement Deduplication and Compression in this setup. My > thought would be to run ZFS to handle the Compression and Deduplication. > > ZFS would give me the following benefits: > 1. If a single disk fails rebuilds happen locally instead of over the network I actually run mine in a pure stripe for best performance, if a disk fails and smart warnings didn’t give me enough time to replace it inline first, I’ll rebuild over the network. I have 10G of course, and currently < 10TB of data so I consider it reasonable. I also decided I’d rather present one large brick over many smaller bricks, in some tests others have done, it has shown benefits for gluster healing. > 2. Zil & L2Arc should add a slight performance increase Yes. Get the absolute fasted ZIL you can, but any modern enterprise SSD will still give you some benefits. Over-provision these, you probably need 4-15Gb for the Zil (1G networking vs 10G), and I use 90% of the cache drive to allow the SSD to work it’s best. Cache effectiveness depends on your workload, so monitor and/or test with/without. > 3. Deduplication and Compression are inline and have pretty good performance > with modern hardware (Intel Skylake) LZ4 compression is great. As others have said, I’d avoid deduplication altogether. Especially in a gluster environment, why waste the RAM and do the work multiple times? > 4. Automated Snapshotting Be careful doing this “underneath” the gluster layer, you’re snapshotting only that replica and it’s not guaranteed to be in sync with the others. At best, you’re making a point in time backup of one node, maybe useful for off-system backups with zfs streaming, but I’d consider gluster geo-rep first. And won’t work at all if you are not running a pure replica. > I can then layer GlusterFS on top to handle distribution to allow 3x Replicas > of my storage. > My question is… Why aren’t more people doing this? Is this a horrible idea > for some reason that I’m missing? I’d be very interested to hear your > thoughts. > > Additional thoughts: > I’d like to use Ganesha pNFS to connect to this storage. (Any issues here?) I’d just use glusterfs glfsapi mounts, but if you want to go NFS, sure. Make sure you’re ready to support Ganesha, it doesn’t seem to be as well integrated in the latest gluster releases. Caveat, I don’t use it myself. > I think I’d need KeepAliveD across these 3x nodes to store in the FSTAB (Is > this correct?) There are easier ways. I use a simple DNS round robin to a name (that i can put in the host files for the servers/clients to avoid bootstrap issues when the local DNS is a vm ;)), and set the backup-server option so nodes can switch automatically if one fails. Or you can mount localhost: with a converged cluster, again with backup-server options for best results. > I’m also thinking about creating a “Gluster Tier” of 512GB of Intel Optane > DIMM to really smooth out write latencies… Any issues here? Gluster tiering is currently being dropped from support, until/unless it comes back, I’d use the optanes as cache/zil or just make a separate fast pool out of them. _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
