On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bruce Dawson <j...@codemeta.com> wrote:
> On 08/21/2015 05:30 PM, Tom Buskey wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Bruce Dawson <j...@codemeta.com> wrote: > >> For this rainy weekend, please consider the following: >> >> I'm constructing a new server and want 2 KVM guest systems on it. There >> are 3 4TB drives on it. At the moment, assume one 4TB drive will be >> reserved for the KVM host. The server has 16GB of RAM. >> >> > I wouldn't ever run ZFS on a single disk if I cared about the data. It's > like running RAID0; get an error, you lose your all your data. Actually, > you might recover data from a RAID0 non-ZFS. > > > Oh - but I thought ZFS will mirror "filesystems" within the pool (probably > with much poorer performance)? At any rate, I'm thinking the first approach > is the best. > You *can* setup the zpool to make 2 copies (copies=2) inside a single device. However, if the hardware fails, you lose data. The usual zpool setups are mirror or a raidz across multiple devices. raidz is similar to RAID5 w/o the write hole. > You can use iSCSI on ZFS to give your KVMs a a raw block device instead of > a zfs partition w/ a QCOW2 file. I've only done the zfs partition & qcow2, > not the iSCSI block. > > > I didn't know ZFS would provide that. Guess I've got more reading - I > wonder if it'll be faster. > I know it is in Solaris. I've head of others doing it in BSD. I've not done it in Linux yet. Linux hasn't solidified iSCSI target/initiators like the others.
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
