Hi Maciej, Tell me if i'm wrong but with block device you have two solutions :1 - Use it with cinder and have to specify Boot From volume when creating a VM2 - Use it directly with meta data storage, but need to create 1 volume for each node In any case you loose the ability to live migrate instance. Right ? Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:02:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [Openstack] Storage decision From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
On 4 November 2013 10:46, Julien De Freitas <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Razique, Thanks for the link !I read the full discussion and as I tought there is no real perfect solution so far.I think i'll continue to use nexenta because it's a great solution and i'll set up multi back end storage for cinder in order to test ceph block storage. For meta data storage i'll do some test with CephFS because not production ready mean a lot and nothing at the same time. I your previsous mail you said "the FS kept hanging on high load, so I considered it to be pretty unstable for OpenStack", but if it was kept hanging on high load it should be pretty stable ? what was the load ? Can you share more detail with us ? That's a pity that we could not find any neutral heavy test out there. If you consider Ceph you should take a look at Ceph RBD not CephFS (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd/). It is stable and works great for me. -- Maciej Gałkiewicz Shelly Cloud Sp. z o. o., Sysadmin http://shellycloud.com/, [email protected] KRS: 0000440358 REGON: 101504426
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
