Thank you very much.
What about "direct lun" usage and database example?


2017-06-08 16:40 GMT+02:00 Elad Ben Aharon <ebena...@redhat.com>:

> Hi,
> Answer inline
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Stefano Bovina <bov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> does a storage best practise document for oVirt exist?
>>
>>
>> Some examples:
>>
>> oVirt allows to extend an existing storage domain: Is it better to keep a
>> 1:1 relation between LUN and oVirt storage domain?
>>
> What do you mean by 1:1 relation? Between storage domain and the number of
> LUNs the domain reside on?
>
>> If not, is it better to avoid adding LUNs to an already existing storage
>> domain?
>>
> No problems with storage domain extension.
>
>>
>> Following the previous questions:
>>
>> Is it better to have 1 Big oVirt storage domain or many small oVirt
>> storage domains?
>>
> Depends on your needs, be aware to the following:
> - Each domain has its own metadata which allocates ~5GB of the domain size.
> - Each domain is being constatntly monitored by the system, so large
> number of domain can decrease the system performance.
> There are also downsides with having big domains, like less flexability
>
>> There is a max num VM/disks for storage domain?
>>
>>
>> In which case is it better to use "direct attached lun" with respect to
>> an image on an oVirt storage domain?
>>
>
>>
>
>> Example:
>>
>> Simple web server:   ----> image
>> Large database (simple example):
>>    - root,swap etc: 30GB  ----> image?
>>    - data disk: 500GB    -----> (direct or image?)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Stefano
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to