Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
another point is, that a correct configured multipathing is way more solid when it comes to a single path outage. at the software side, i have seen countless nfs servers which where unresponsive because of lockd issues for example, and only a reboot fixed this since its kernel based. another contra for me is, that its rather complicated and a 50/50 chance that a nfs failover in a nfs ha setup works without any clients dying. dont get me wrong, nfs is great for small setups. its easy to setup, easy to scale, i use it very widespread for content sharing and homedirs. but i am healed regarding vm images on nfs. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Karli Sjöberg karli.sjob...@slu.se wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: Right, try multipathing with nfs :) Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really separates iSCSI from NFS. What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about when we´ll hit it... /K On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, Karli Sjöberg karli.sjob...@slu.se wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +, Markus Stockhausen wrote: Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and let that load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with iSCSI as well but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a chance of trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the same time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try iSCSI instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to achieve that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In comparing them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference at all, at least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD. /K -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Von: Karli Sjöberg [karli.sjob...@slu.se] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 08:48 An: squa...@gmail.com Cc: users@ovirt.org; Markus Stockhausen Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: Right, try multipathing with nfs :) Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really separates iSCSI from NFS. What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about when we´ll hit it... /K If that is really a concern for the initial question about a low cost NFS solution LACP on the NFS filer side will mitigate the bottleneck from too many hypervisors. My personal headache is the I/O performance of QEMU. More details here: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2013-12/msg00028.html Or to make it short: Each I/O in a VM gets a penalty of 370us. That is much more than in ESX environments. I would be interested if this the same in ISCSI setups. Markus Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. Ãber das Internet versandte E-Mails können unter fremden Namen erstellt oder manipuliert werden. Deshalb ist diese als E-Mail verschickte Nachricht keine rechtsverbindliche Willenserklärung. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln Vorstand: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Hans Kristian Langva Registergericht: Amtsgericht Köln Registernummer: HRB 52 497 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. e-mails sent over the internet may have been written under a wrong name or been manipulated. That is why this message sent as an e-mail is not a legally binding declaration of intention. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln executive board: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach President of the supervisory board: Hans Kristian Langva Registry office: district court Cologne Register number: HRB 52 497 ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator. btw, freebsd 10 includes kernel based iscsi-target now. which works pretty good for me since some time, easy to setup and working performing well (zfs not to forget ;) ) On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Markus Stockhausen stockhau...@collogia.dewrote: Von: Karli Sjöberg [karli.sjob...@slu.se] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 08:48 An: squa...@gmail.com Cc: users@ovirt.org; Markus Stockhausen Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: Right, try multipathing with nfs :) Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really separates iSCSI from NFS. What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about when we´ll hit it... /K If that is really a concern for the initial question about a low cost NFS solution LACP on the NFS filer side will mitigate the bottleneck from too many hypervisors. My personal headache is the I/O performance of QEMU. More details here: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2013-12/msg00028.html Or to make it short: Each I/O in a VM gets a penalty of 370us. That is much more than in ESX environments. I would be interested if this the same in ISCSI setups. Markus -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 09:30 +0100, squadra wrote: try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator. btw, freebsd 10 includes kernel based iscsi-target now. which works pretty good for me since some time, easy to setup and working performing well (zfs not to forget ;) ) Yeah I see 10´s reached RC4 now, probably´ll be out for real soon, and then a while more to wait for 10.1 to have longer support:) Have you compared the new iscsi-target with ports/istgt btw? /K On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Markus Stockhausen stockhau...@collogia.de wrote: Von: Karli Sjöberg [karli.sjob...@slu.se] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 08:48 An: squa...@gmail.com Cc: users@ovirt.org; Markus Stockhausen Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: Right, try multipathing with nfs :) Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really separates iSCSI from NFS. What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about when we´ll hit it... /K If that is really a concern for the initial question about a low cost NFS solution LACP on the NFS filer side will mitigate the bottleneck from too many hypervisors. My personal headache is the I/O performance of QEMU. More details here: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2013-12/msg00028.html Or to make it short: Each I/O in a VM gets a penalty of 370us. That is much more than in ESX environments. I would be interested if this the same in ISCSI setups. Markus -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Von: squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 09:30 An: Markus Stockhausen Cc: Karli Sjöberg; users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator. I guess you did not take time to read the hole post. The latency I speak of comes ontop the NFS latency. So my setup has - 83us latency per I/O in the hypervisor on a NFS share - 450us latency per I/O in the VM on a disk hosted on the same NFS share If ISCSI could reduce latency to 40us instead of 83us in our wishfulst dreams the QEMU penalty hits too hard. Markus Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. Ãber das Internet versandte E-Mails können unter fremden Namen erstellt oder manipuliert werden. Deshalb ist diese als E-Mail verschickte Nachricht keine rechtsverbindliche Willenserklärung. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln Vorstand: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Hans Kristian Langva Registergericht: Amtsgericht Köln Registernummer: HRB 52 497 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. e-mails sent over the internet may have been written under a wrong name or been manipulated. That is why this message sent as an e-mail is not a legally binding declaration of intention. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln executive board: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach President of the supervisory board: Hans Kristian Langva Registry office: district court Cologne Register number: HRB 52 497 ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Markus Stockhausen stockhau...@collogia.de wrote: Von: squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 09:30 An: Markus Stockhausen Cc: Karli Sjöberg; users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator. I guess you did not take time to read the hole post. The latency I speak of comes ontop the NFS latency. So my setup has - 83us latency per I/O in the hypervisor on a NFS share - 450us latency per I/O in the VM on a disk hosted on the same NFS share If ISCSI could reduce latency to 40us instead of 83us in our wishfulst dreams the QEMU penalty hits too hard. There are some interesting tests here: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio/Block/Latency Results seem to depend a lot on the guest OS IO stack/drivers (I see you use win2k3?). ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 09:53 +0100, Sander Grendelman wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Markus Stockhausen stockhau...@collogia.de wrote: Von: squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 09:30 An: Markus Stockhausen Cc: Karli Sjöberg; users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator. I guess you did not take time to read the hole post. The latency I speak of comes ontop the NFS latency. So my setup has - 83us latency per I/O in the hypervisor on a NFS share - 450us latency per I/O in the VM on a disk hosted on the same NFS share If ISCSI could reduce latency to 40us instead of 83us in our wishfulst dreams the QEMU penalty hits too hard. There are some interesting tests here: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio/Block/Latency Very interesting: ...23% overhead compared to a host read request. This deserves closer study so that the overhead can be reduced. Good to know people know and are at least thinking about it:) Seeing as it´s such a fast-paced development, have you done any benchmarks on different distributions as well? I mean like comparing the same test against both, say Fedora and CentOS, to see if that makes any difference? /K Results seem to depend a lot on the guest OS IO stack/drivers (I see you use win2k3?). ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
[Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Hi, I'd like to ask around if someone does run oVirt with NFS backed Storage provided by simple servers (no SAN or NAS) and what your experience is so far? In particular I'm interested what happens if there is a connection loss to the NFS-Volume. How does this affect running vms and the compute nodes they run on? I suspect they would first write their changes to RAM instead of virtual HDD. But once the RAM is full, does just the vm become unresponsive or does the whole compute node die? I couldn't test this yet myself, but my limited experience with NFS-Servers tells me, that they become unresponsive if they are under heavy load and I'd like to know how this affects the vms and computenode. Thanks! PS: Bonus question: Does someone utilize the NFS-Servers also as computenodes ? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Hi, I'd like to ask around if someone does run oVirt with NFS backed Storage provided by simple servers (no SAN or NAS) and what your experience is so far? We are running OVirt (still in test phase) on three self build equal Ubuntu NFS servers over Infiniband (50 Euros for a ConnectX card + 50 Euros a cable + 400 Euros a switch). Due to massive bandwidth the bottleneck are the SATA disks and the RAID controller. I fixed some info at http://www.ovirt.org/Infiniband Our soon to be replaced ESX infrastucture uses the same platform. In particular I'm interested what happens if there is a connection loss to the NFS-Volume. You can be sure that the applications in your VMs will get stuck. They usually flush their write caches in regular intervals. This is directly translated into a NFS write on the hypervisor. At least it should be configured that way otherwise you could loose data in case of a crash. E.g. VM thinks data is persisent, but it was only cached in the hypervisor RAM. How does this affect running vms and the compute nodes they run on? The hypervisor has no problems at all (except you run a df command) and the VMs usually will continue their operation after NFS recovers. Nevertheless the are lot of timeout settings in the architecute stack that may stop a running application inside the VM. Expect do have a lot of manual cleanup after a NFS failure. I suspect they would first write their changes to RAM instead of virtual HDD. But once the RAM is full, does just the vm become unresponsive or does the whole compute node die? That would be bad practice. See above. I couldn't test this yet myself, but my limited experience with NFS-Servers tells me, that they become unresponsive if they are under heavy load and I'd like to know how this affects the vms and computenode. Defining heavy load is basically some kind of I/O calculation. A simple example from our setup. - Each NFS server has a RAID6 consisting of 14 SATA disks (7.2K) - The top-loaded NFS server runs a minimum of 140 8K I/Os per second - Assuming a random pattern we speak of 140 Read-Modify-Write cycles - That translates to roughly to 6*140=840 I/Os per second. - The 14 SATA disks offer a maximum of 14*90=1260 I/Os per second - No wonder that the NFS server gives usually a 20% wait I/O usage. Thanks! PS: Bonus question: Does someone utilize the NFS-Servers also as computenodes ? We spearated that stricly. Otherwise we would go with a Gluster FS. Markus P.S. We leave VMWare because live storage migration of OVirt VMs gives us the possibility to reduce the complexity on the storage side. Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. Ãber das Internet versandte E-Mails können unter fremden Namen erstellt oder manipuliert werden. Deshalb ist diese als E-Mail verschickte Nachricht keine rechtsverbindliche Willenserklärung. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln Vorstand: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Hans Kristian Langva Registergericht: Amtsgericht Köln Registernummer: HRB 52 497 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. e-mails sent over the internet may have been written under a wrong name or been manipulated. That is why this message sent as an e-mail is not a legally binding declaration of intention. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln executive board: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach President of the supervisory board: Hans Kristian Langva Registry office: district court Cologne Register number: HRB 52 497 ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On 8-1-2014 13:18, Sven Kieske wrote: PS: Bonus question: Does someone utilize the NFS-Servers also as computenodes ? We do, temporarily. It is NOT recommended :-) because: - can't update your NFS server without shutting down all VMs - myriad of other reasons Still I did a reboot of our NFS server to update all nodes/engine from 3.2.2 to 3.3.2. How? Made a script which did a virsh suspend VM which freezes all I/O and then ran yum update/reboot on the NFS server. It worked but its not good for your stress levels. Joop ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, noc n...@nieuwland.nl wrote: On 8-1-2014 13:18, Sven Kieske wrote: PS: Bonus question: Does someone utilize the NFS-Servers also as computenodes ? We do, temporarily. It is NOT recommended :-) because: - can't update your NFS server without shutting down all VMs - myriad of other reasons Still I did a reboot of our NFS server to update all nodes/engine from 3.2.2 to 3.3.2. How? Made a script which did a virsh suspend VM which freezes all I/O and then ran yum update/reboot on the NFS server. It worked but its not good for your stress levels. Joop ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. Ãber das Internet versandte E-Mails können unter fremden Namen erstellt oder manipuliert werden. Deshalb ist diese als E-Mail verschickte Nachricht keine rechtsverbindliche Willenserklärung. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln Vorstand: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Hans Kristian Langva Registergericht: Amtsgericht Köln Registernummer: HRB 52 497 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. e-mails sent over the internet may have been written under a wrong name or been manipulated. That is why this message sent as an e-mail is not a legally binding declaration of intention. Collogia Unternehmensberatung AG Ubierring 11 D-50678 Köln executive board: Kadir Akin Dr. Michael Höhnerbach President of the supervisory board: Hans Kristian Langva Registry office: district court Cologne Register number: HRB 52 497 ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +, Markus Stockhausen wrote: Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and let that load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with iSCSI as well but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a chance of trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the same time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try iSCSI instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to achieve that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In comparing them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference at all, at least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD. /K ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
There's are already enaugh articles on the web about NFS problems related locking, latency, etc Eh stacking a protocol onto another to fix problem and then maybe one more to glue them together. Google for the suse PDF why NFS sucks, I don't agree with the whole sheet.. NFS got his place,too. But not as production filer for VM. Cheers, Juergen, the NFS lover On Jan 9, 2014 8:10 AM, Markus Stockhausen stockhau...@collogia.de wrote: Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
Right, try multipathing with nfs :) On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, Karli Sjöberg karli.sjob...@slu.se wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +, Markus Stockhausen wrote: Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and let that load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with iSCSI as well but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a chance of trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the same time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try iSCSI instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to achieve that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In comparing them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference at all, at least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD. /K ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage?
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: Right, try multipathing with nfs :) Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really separates iSCSI from NFS. What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about when we´ll hit it... /K On Jan 9, 2014 8:30 AM, Karli Sjöberg karli.sjob...@slu.se wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 07:10 +, Markus Stockhausen wrote: Von: users-boun...@ovirt.org [users-boun...@ovirt.org] im Auftrag von squadra [squa...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 17:15 An: users@ovirt.org Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? better go for iscsi or something else... i whould avoid nfs for vm hosting Freebsd10 delivers kernel iscsitarget now, which works great so far. or go with omnios to get comstar iscsi, which is a rocksolid solution Cheers, Juergen That is usually a matter of taste and the available environment. The minimal differences in performance usually only show up if you drive the storage to its limits. I guess you could help Sven better if you had some hard facts why to favour ISCSI. Best regards. Markus Only technical difference I can think of is the iSCSI-level load-balancing. With NFS you set up the network with LACP and let that load-balance for you (and you should probably do that with iSCSI as well but you don´t strictly have to). I think it has to do with a chance of trying to go beyond the capacity of 1 network interface at the same time, from one Host (higher bandwidth) that makes people try iSCSI instead of plain NFS. I have tried that but was never able to achieve that effect, so in our situation, there´s no difference. In comparing them both in benchmarks, there was no performance difference at all, at least for our storage systems that are based on FreeBSD. /K ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
