Hello, ZFS is unfortunately not supported, otherwise I would have recommended that. But if you are going local systems (no nfs/iscsi), ext4 would be the way to go.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:23 PM Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if you use local fs, use just ext4 over the required disk topology which > gives the desired redundancy. > > E.g. JBOD, R0 work well when data safety policy is established and backups > are maintained well. > > Otherwise look to R5, R10 or R6. > > пн, 15 июл. 2019 г., 18:05 <n...@li.nux.ro>: > > > Isn't that a bit apples and oranges? Ceph is a network distributed > > thingy, not a local solution. > > > > I'd use linux/software raid + lvm, it's the only one supported (by > > CentOS/RedHat). > > > > ZFS on Linux could be interesting if it was supported by Cloudstack, but > > it is not, you'd end up using qcow2 (COW) files on top of a COW > > filesystem which could lead to issues. Also ZFS is not really the > > fastest fs out there, though it does have some nice features. > > > > Did you really mean raid 0? I hope you have backups. :) > > > > hth > > > > > > On 2019-07-15 11:49, Fariborz Navidan wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Which one do you think is faster to use for local soft Raid-0 for > > > primary > > > storage? Ceph, ZFS or Built-in soft raid manager of CentOS? Which one > > > can > > > gives us better IOPS and IO latency on NVMe SSD disks? The storage will > > > be > > > used for production cloud environment where arround 60 VMs will run on > > > top > > > of it. > > > > > > Your ides are highly appreciated > > > -- Thanks, Chris pedersen
