[one-users] Storage architecture question

[Gary S. Cuozzo]

Hi Tino,
Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I think you understand correctly.  My goal is to be able to utilize storage which is local to a particular vm host node without incurring the overhead of duplicated storage on the controller node and transfer time from controller to vm host.

I do understand that the images will only be accessible from the particular vm host which they reside on, but that is ok as it would be the trade-off for local disk performance.  I have a great iSCSI/NFS SAN which is used for shared storage, but it will never be able to offer the same level of performance as local storage.  So I'm looking to be able to have that local option for the few cases it's required for I/O intensive applications.

I have not actually had the chance to try it out yet, but I think it will give me what I'm looking for.

Thanks again,
gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tino Vazquez" <tinova at opennebula.org>
To: "Gary S. Cuozzo" <gary at isgsoftware.net>
Cc: users at lists.opennebula.org
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:40:06 PM
Subject: Re: [one-users] Storage architecture question

Dear Gary,

I am not sure I understand 100% your desired set-up, but if I grasped
it correctly, I think the problem you may found is the images would
only be local to the node that is exporting the NFS share. Otherwise I
think it will work as you expect.

Regards,

-Tino

--
Constantino Vázquez Blanco, MSc
Project Engineer
OpenNebula - The Open-Source Solution for Data Center Virtualization
www.OpenNebula.org | @tinova79 | @OpenNebula


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Gary S. Cuozzo <gary at isgsoftware.net> wrote:
> Hi Users,
> I am running ONE 3.6 and would like to be able to run a combination of
> shared storage (via iSCSI) and local storage (to take advantage of local
> disk performance for certain applications).  My question is related to the
> local storage aspect.
>
> From what I've seen, I can use a local datastore and the ssh TM to
> accomplish local storage.  The drawback that I see is that I need 2x the
> amount of disk space because I need storage for the permanent image on the
> controller node, then storage on the local host for the running image when
> it is deployed.  A secondary issue for me is that the images have to be
> transferred between the datastore and the host machine, which will take some
> time with larger images.
>
> To get around the problem, I thought I could set the datastore up as a
> shared filesystem, except the sharing would actually be from the host
> machine to the controller machine via NFS.  Is there any particular
> reason(s) that would be a bad idea?  On the surface it seems like it should
> work just fine, but I'm somewhat new to ONE and want to be sure I'm not
> going down a bad path since I plan to do this with several host machines.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
> gary
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opennebula.org
> http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
>