[one-users] My new setup for private cloud

[Carlos Martín Sánchez]

Thanks a lot Alberto, we really appreciate your taking the time to write
this up. It's great to see the list becoming a knowledge base and not just
a support list.
--
Carlos Martín, MSc
Project Engineer
OpenNebula - The Open-source Solution for Data Center Virtualization
www.OpenNebula.org | cmartin at opennebula.org |
@OpenNebula<http://twitter.com/opennebula><cmartin at opennebula.org>


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Alberto Zuin - Liste
<liste at albertozuin.eu>wrote:

> Just to share my experience.
> From the beginning of my experience with OpenNebula, I made some changes
> in storage technology and now I found a solution that works pretty well for
> my necessities.
> First: there isn't an "always ok" solution, every solution works in a
> particular situation. My situation is, simply, a budget situation where the
> pourpose is saving money and have a solution that can fit my I/O load
> necessity.
> In my private cloud, I have 5 KVM servers and a total of 20-30 VM: some
> are computational only VM (mail scanner, DNS, ecc.), some are I/O intensive
> (MySQL server for LAMP, Syslog server, ecc.): the seconds are the problem
> because the previous solutions didn't fits the I/O necessities.
> My first solution was a storage server made with linux that exports an
> (c)LVM disk via AoE (just because has less overhead than iSCSI): the load
> of the server was very high and the I/O throughput not fast. Ok, the lesson
> I learned: if you have to make a shared storage, don't use a commodity
> server, use an optimized one with high speed disks, powerful controllers,
> 10GB Ethernet... or simply, buy a FC SAN ;-)
> My second test was with a cluster storage with MooseFS: here I had
> conflicting results. I have a customer with a well working setup with 10
> storage server and 10 XEN Hypervisors; in my private cloud, with only 3
> storage server (one master and two chunk) the I/O is slow as the first
> solution: no benefit from using two server to balance the I/O load, and 2 1
> Gb Ethernet card in bonding is another bottleneck. The lesson I learned
> here: to have a powerful cluster storage you have to use many servers.
> My third (last) setup that work pretty well is... to not use only one
> shared storage, but distribute the storage across the hypervisors.
> I thought of a thing: my old hypervisors are some Dell R410 with 2
> quad-core CPU and 32 GB Ram; if I can fit in a Rack 1U cabinet, 2 Mini-ITX
> Motherboard with a Core i7 (not perfectly like the Xeon of R410 but not too
> far) and 16 GB Ram... it's the same. And if I can fit also 4 high speed
> disk like WD Velociraptor for the data and two SSD disk for SO, I can use
> DRBD in Active/Active mode with cLVM or GFS2 to have a decent storage in HA
> for the VMs instantiated in this "double-server".
> Now I have 4 mini-itx double server each with this configuration; in
> OpenNebula, each double-server is a separate "cluster" and the DRBD disk is
> the datastore associated with the cluster.
> Certainly I can't migrate a VM across two cluster, but at the moment this
> solution fits pretty well my speed necessity, the costs of each
> "double-server" are less than a real 1U server and the power consumption in
> datacenter decreased.
> My 2 cents,
> Alberto
>
> --
> AZ Network Specialist
> via Mare, 36A
> 36030 Lugo di Vicenza (VI)
> ITALY
> P.I. IT04310790284
> http://www.azns.it
> Tel +39.3286268626
> Fax +39.0492106654
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opennebula.org
> http://lists.opennebula.org/**listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.**org<http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opennebula.org/pipermail/users-opennebula.org/attachments/20130320/6f3e840f/attachment-0002.htm>