Hi Ian, Unless you're going to use SSD drives in your cinder-volume nodes, why do you expect to get any better performance out of this setup, versus a ceph cluster? If anything, performance would be worse since at least ceph has the ability to stripe access across many nodes, and therefore many more disks, per volume.
- Darren On 8 April 2014 12:55, Ian Marshall <i...@itlhosting.co.uk> wrote: > Hi All > > I am considering storage nodes for my small production deployment. I have > rejected Ceph as I cant get confidence that performance will be Ok without > SSD drives. > > I need to be able to boot from block storage, do live migrations and > create snapshots which could be used to create new instances. From the > documentation, all this is feasible with LVM volumes. Ideally I wanted to > use unified storage so I can have block and object on same node. > > What I would like to know from those using LVM storage nodes is the > preferred set-up as I need a minimum 6Tb block storage and wonder whether I > could use local cinder-volumes on each compute node and a central swift > storage server for 'cinder backups', > > Networkiis all 10gbe. > > Can I share these volumes across my compute nodes or is it better to only > use local volume on each nodes for running instances from block storage on > that node. > > Overall I am expecting to require about 80-100 concurrent instances [VMs] > across two compute nodes. along with this will be multiple controller nodes. > > > > Regards > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
