On 2012-11-09 16:14, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
From: Karl Wagner [mailto:k...@mouse-hole.com]

If I was doing this now, I would probably use the ZFS aware OS bare metal,
but I still think I would use iSCSI to export the ZVols (mainly due to the 
to use it across a real network, hence allowing guests to be migrated simply)

Yes, if your VM host is some system other than your ZFS baremetal storage 
server, then exporting the zvol via iscsi is a good choice, or exporting your 
storage via NFS.  Each one has their own pros/cons, and I would personally be 
biased in favor of iscsi.

But if you're going to run the guest VM on the same machine that is the ZFS 
storage server, there's no need for the iscsi.

Well, since the ease of re-attachment of VM hosts to iSCSI was mentioned
a few times in this thread (and there are particular nuances with iSCSI
to localhost), it is worth mentioning that NFS files can be re-attached
just as easily - including the localhost.

Cloning disks is just as easy when they are zvols or files in dedicated
datasets; note that disk image UUIDs must be re-forged anyway (see doc).

Also note, that in general, there might be need for some fencing (i.e.
only one host tries to start up a VM from a particular backend image).
I am not sure iSCSI inherently does a better job than NFS at this?..

zfs-discuss mailing list
            • ... dswartz
            • ... Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
            • ... Dan Swartzendruber
            • ... Dan Swartzendruber
            • ... Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
          • ... Dan Swartzendruber
      • Re: [zfs... Karl Wagner
        • Re: ... Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
          • ... Karl Wagner
            • ... Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
            • ... Jim Klimov
      • Re: [zfs... Dan Swartzendruber
  • Re: [zfs-discuss]... Jim Klimov

Reply via email to