Re: [Gluster-users] Getting the best performance v lowest energy use and small form factor

[Lindsay Mathieson]

On 4 November 2015 at 08:39, Thing  wrote:

> Thanks but, your solution doesnt protect for a single PC hardware failure
> like a PSU blowing ie giving me real time replication to the 2nd site so I
> can be back up in minutes.
>

ZFS can be configured to replicate every few minutes - whether that is
sufficient is dependant on your uptime and data loss requirements.

If you *must* have realtime redundancy then yes something like gluster or
ceph is your only option. Gluster is easier to setup and maintain then
ceph. Both of them are a lot more reliable if you have three nodes, two
nodes is asking for trouble - split brain etc.

If you want some throughput estimates then we need more spec's:

- RAM
- CPU
- Hard Disks
- Network
- Overall Config
  * Caching
  * Bonding
  * etc

- With a std 1GB ethernet, your writes will max out at around 110 MB/s
- Same for Reads, unless your VM Host is also your gluster node, in which
case your reads will be a bit slower than your underlying file system
access times


-- 
Lindsay
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Getting the best performance v lowest energy use and small form factor

[Thing]

Hi,

Thanks but, your solution doesnt protect for a single PC hardware failure
like a PSU blowing ie giving me real time replication to the 2nd site so I
can be back up in minutes.

On 4 November 2015 at 10:41, Lindsay Mathieson 
wrote:

>
> On 4 November 2015 at 06:37, Thing  wrote:
>
>>
>> Looking at running a 2 node gluster setup to feed a small Virtualisation
>> setup.  I need it to be low energy use, low purchase cost and small form
>> factor so I am looking at 2 mini-itx motherboards.
>>
>> Does anyone know what sort of throughput I can expect? ie I am looking
>> for as good as a single drive in the VMare/kvm box but simply having
>> redundancy for data protection and availability so nothing huge is required.
>
>
> Well read throughput is going to depend entirely on your drives and
> network, write through put almost certainly bound by your network. It
> probably won't be as good as a single drive by itself - realtime
> replication by its nature is going to be slower..
>
> For your sort of setup I'd be looking at a ZFS setup, RAID1 or 10 if you
> can afford it with a SSD read/write cache (easy with ZFS), it will have
> pretty good performance and lots of extra goodies such as snapshots,
> compression (very good), checksuming/bitrot detection. That in and of
> itself with have data redundancy on the one PC.
>
> If you absolutely need redundancy across two PC's then you could setup a
> 2nd ZFS server and use ZFS's builtin differential snapshots to replicate to
> the 2nd server on a regular interval.
>
>
> --
> Lindsay
>
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

[Gluster-users] Getting the best performance v lowest energy use and small form factor

[Thing]

Hi All,

Looking at running a 2 node gluster setup to feed a small Virtualisation
setup.  I need it to be low energy use, low purchase cost and small form
factor so I am looking at 2 mini-itx motherboards.

Does anyone know what sort of throughput I can expect? ie I am looking for
as good as a single drive in the VMare/kvm box but simply having redundancy
for data protection and availability so nothing huge is required.

Motherboards / chipsets to look for that give great disk i/o?

ie I'd pay a premium for say a gigabyte motherbaord with a XX chipset if it
had noticable better disk i/o.
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Getting the best performance v lowest energy use and small form factor

[Thing]

Hi,

I had already picked Gluster based on the requirements it meets, that of
not especially high disk i/o but fast recovery with as little dataloss as
possible and real time replication to a second site.






On 4 November 2015 at 12:16, Lindsay Mathieson 
wrote:

>
> On 4 November 2015 at 08:39, Thing  wrote:
>
>> Thanks but, your solution doesnt protect for a single PC hardware failure
>> like a PSU blowing ie giving me real time replication to the 2nd site so I
>> can be back up in minutes.
>>
>
> ZFS can be configured to replicate every few minutes - whether that is
> sufficient is dependant on your uptime and data loss requirements.
>
> If you *must* have realtime redundancy then yes something like gluster or
> ceph is your only option. Gluster is easier to setup and maintain then
> ceph. Both of them are a lot more reliable if you have three nodes, two
> nodes is asking for trouble - split brain etc.
>
> If you want some throughput estimates then we need more spec's:
>
> - RAM
> - CPU
> - Hard Disks
> - Network
> - Overall Config
>   * Caching
>   * Bonding
>   * etc
>
> - With a std 1GB ethernet, your writes will max out at around 110 MB/s
> - Same for Reads, unless your VM Host is also your gluster node, in which
> case your reads will be a bit slower than your underlying file system
> access times
>
>
> --
> Lindsay
>
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Getting the best performance v lowest energy use and small form factor

[Lindsay Mathieson]

On 4 November 2015 at 06:37, Thing  wrote:

>
> Looking at running a 2 node gluster setup to feed a small Virtualisation
> setup.  I need it to be low energy use, low purchase cost and small form
> factor so I am looking at 2 mini-itx motherboards.
>
> Does anyone know what sort of throughput I can expect? ie I am looking for
> as good as a single drive in the VMare/kvm box but simply having redundancy
> for data protection and availability so nothing huge is required.


Well read throughput is going to depend entirely on your drives and
network, write through put almost certainly bound by your network. It
probably won't be as good as a single drive by itself - realtime
replication by its nature is going to be slower..

For your sort of setup I'd be looking at a ZFS setup, RAID1 or 10 if you
can afford it with a SSD read/write cache (easy with ZFS), it will have
pretty good performance and lots of extra goodies such as snapshots,
compression (very good), checksuming/bitrot detection. That in and of
itself with have data redundancy on the one PC.

If you absolutely need redundancy across two PC's then you could setup a
2nd ZFS server and use ZFS's builtin differential snapshots to replicate to
the 2nd server on a regular interval.


-- 
Lindsay
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users