The question is how much does the overhead of virtualisation (which with afs is not much) actually matter with an AFS fileserver and the client side caching.

The data I have collected over time on our hardware server suggests that our afs servers while containing a lot of data and user volumes are not very heavily loaded and 95% of the time we are underutilizing the hardware we had with it sitting at 1-2 % cpu, not using much memory, the GB network links idling and the disk IO requirements not the heavy on average.

We also have had to deal with large budget cuts which meant we could not purchase what we have been able to in the past nor afford to run it.

ESX allows us to share HBA's, FC ports for multiple hosts meaning less FC overhead in setting it up. We are using 70% less power, need less cooling and less space.

We now have less (higher quality) servers than we did before so harware support cost has dropped. Also even with multiple AFS FS servers running on a single ESX box we do not see any IO issues yet. If we ever do we can just vmotion the problem server to another underulitlised ESX server (without having to shutdown the FS server in about 1 minute).

We also have a three year lease cycle that means we have to swap servers hardware on a regular basis, but with vmotion and shared sans luns we do not need to use vos move.

If we have any problem volumes/apps we have a couple of hardware afs servers for them. But so far apart from the issues with vos listvol (which works but is slow) we have not had any issues.

We are working into it slowly with only about 1Tb of 4Tb of data in VM afs servers and we can always back out if we run into big problems but we had not seem any issues in testing because we did scale it up enougn.

Cheers

Matt


Derek Atkins wrote:
I've never seen any reason to virtualize an AFS server.  Ever.  The key is IO
bandwith, which isn't increased by virtualization.  You really want separate
PHYSICAL servers for AFS servers.  Virtualization does not give you any
benefits due to hardware failure, power failure, or any other failure.  It just
adds overhead.

-derek

_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info

Reply via email to