I've seen a lot higher and more dependable performance using LVM LVs for KVM storage than using files on the filesystem.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Heinlein" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help; civil and on-topic" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:44:20 AM Subject: Re: [PLUG] KVM On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Daniel Herrington wrote: > I'm trying KVM out as a replacement for Vmware ESX. I have installed > Ubuntu 10.04 x86_64 on an HP DL360. Setting up a CentOs 5.4 image, > the install took 10 hours. I'm guessing the problem lies in the way > I've get storage pools and volumes setup? > > I originally tried to do a storage pool on a physical disk device, > but had trouble creating a volume on it after. Finally decided to > abandon that in favor of pre-formatted block device storage pool. > Has anyone used pre-formatted block devices with KVM before? > > My reasoning for physical disk, and then the block device storage > pools was I assumed it would be faster than simply a file system > directory. I'm curious if anybody on this list has experience with > the best setup for storage pools? What criteria did you use to > determine which type to go with? I'm interested to know what applications you plan to run in the VM that make disk I/O performance so important. My initial Xen installations several years ago were all to KVM partitions, but recently I've settled on file-based disk representations: * they're easy to rsync to other hosts and/or backup * i haven't noticed any significant performance difference -- Paul Heinlein <> [email protected] <> http://www.madboa.com/ _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug -- Dwight Hubbard, RHCE/VCP Email: [email protected] Phone: 503.941.0327 _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
