On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Bryan Sockel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you for the information, i did check my servers this morning, in > total i have 4 servers configured as part of my ovirt deployment, two > virtualization servers and 2 gluster servers, with one of the > virtualization being the arbiter for my gluster replicated storage. > > From what i can see on my 2 dedicated gluster boxes i see traffic going > out over multiple links. On both of my virtualization hosts i am seeing > all traffic go out via em1, and no traffic going out over the other > interfaces. All four interfaces are configured in a single bond as 802.3ad > on both hosts with my logical networks attached to the bond. > the balancing is based on hash with either L2+L3, or L3+L4. It may well be that both end up with the same hash and therefore go through the same link. Y. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaniv Kaul <[email protected]> > To: Bryan Sockel <[email protected]> > Cc: users <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:41:40 +0300 > Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS? > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Bryan Sockel <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Was reading over this post to the group about storage options. I am more >> of a windows guy as appose to a linux guy, but am learning quickly and had >> a question. You said that LACP will not provide extra band with >> (Especially with NFS). Does the same hold true with GlusterFS. We are >> currently using GlusterFS for the file replication piece. Does Glusterfs >> take advantage of any multipathing? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > I'd expect Gluster to take advantage of LACP, as it has replication to > multiple peers (as opposed to NFS). See[1]. > Y. > > [1] https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator% > 20Guide/Network%20Configurations%20Techniques/ > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yaniv Kaul <[email protected]> >> To: Charles Tassell <[email protected]> >> Cc: users <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:40:00 +0300 >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Charles Tassell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> I'm about to setup an oVirt cluster with two hosts hitting a Linux >>> storage server. Since the Linux box can provide the storage in pretty much >>> any form, I'm wondering which option is "best." Our primary focus is on >>> reliability, with performance being a close second. Since we will only be >>> using a single storage server I was thinking NFS would probably beat out >>> GlusterFS, and that NFSv4 would be a better choice than NFSv3. I had >>> assumed that that iSCSI would be better performance wise, but from what I'm >>> seeing online that might not be the case. >> >> >> NFS 4.2 is better than NFS 3 in the sense that you'll get DISCARD >> support, which is nice. >> Gluster probably requires 3 servers. >> In most cases, I don't think people see the difference in performance >> between NFS and iSCSI. The theory is that block storage is faster, but in >> practice, most don't get to those limits where it matters really. >> >> >>> >>> Our servers will be using a 1G network backbone for regular traffic >>> and a dedicated 10G backbone with LACP for redundancy and extra bandwidth >>> for storage traffic if that makes a difference. >> >> >> LCAP many times (especially on NFS) does not provide extra bandwidth, as >> the (single) NFS connection tends to be sticky to a single physical link. >> It's one of the reasons I personally prefer iSCSI with multipathing. >> >> >>> >>> I'll probably try to do some performance benchmarks with 2-3 options, >>> but the reliability issue is a little harder to test for. Has anyone had >>> any particularly bad experiences with a particular storage option? We have >>> been using iSCSI with a Dell MD3x00 SAN and have run into a bunch of issues >>> with the multipath setup, but that won't be a problem with the new SAN >>> since it's only got a single controller interface. >> >> >> A single controller is not very reliable. If reliability is your primary >> concern, I suggest ensuring there is no single point of failure - or at >> least you are aware of all of them (does the storage server have redundant >> power supply? to two power sources? Of course in some scenarios it's an >> overkill and perhaps not practical, but you should be aware of your weak >> spots). >> >> I'd stick with what you are most comfortable managing - creating, backing >> up, extending, verifying health, etc. >> Y. >> >> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >>
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
