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
