[one-users] File system performance testing suite tailored to OpenNebula

[Carlo Daffara]

no (xfs on linux does not perform snapshots); it uses xfsdump. It allows for progressive dumps, with differential backups to a remote xfs server. It uses a concept of "levels" (0 to 9) where 0 is a full backup, and you can provide differential backups at different levels. Some pointers are here:
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/xfsbackuprestore.html
cheers
carlo daffara
cloudweavers

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Gerry O'Brien" <gerry at scss.tcd.ie>
A: "Carlo Daffara" <carlo.daffara at cloudweavers.eu>
Cc: "Users OpenNebula" <users at lists.opennebula.org>
Inviato: Mercoledì, 11 settembre 2013 16:38:41
Oggetto: Re: [one-users] File system performance testing suite tailored to OpenNebula

I presume this uses the XFS snapshot facility?

On 11/09/2013 14:57, Carlo Daffara wrote:
> As for the second part of the question, having a single filesystem helps in reducing the copy cost.
> We have moved from the underlying FS to a distributed fs that does r/w snapshots, and changed the tm scripts to convert
> copies into snapshot operations, so we have a little bit more flexibility in managing the filesystems and stores.
> cheers
> carlo daffara
> cloudweavers
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Gerry O'Brien" <gerry at scss.tcd.ie>
> A: "Users OpenNebula" <users at lists.opennebula.org>
> Inviato: Mercoledì, 11 settembre 2013 13:16:52
> Oggetto: [one-users] File system performance testing suite tailored to	OpenNebula
>
> Hi,
>
>       Are there any recommendations for a file system performance testing
> suite tailored to OpenNebula typical workloads? I would like to compare
> the performance of zfs v. ext4. One of the reasons for considering zfs
> is that it allows replication to a remote site using snapshot streaming.
> Normal nightly backups, using something like rsync, are not suitable for
> virtual machine images where a single block change means the whole image
> has to be copied. The amount of change is to great.
>
>       On a related issue, does it make sense to have datastores 0 and 1
> in a single files system so that the instantiations of non-persistent
> images does not require a copy from one file system to another? I have
> in mind the case where the original image is a qcow2 image.
>
>           Regards,
>               Gerry
>


-- 
Gerry O'Brien

Systems Manager
School of Computer Science and Statistics
Trinity College Dublin
Dublin 2
IRELAND

00 353 1 896 1341