[one-users] Fwd: Add New Storage Box

[Jaime Melis]

Rhesa,

the problem is datastore 0, it's the system datastore. If you move it to
the local nodes, it will not be shared and synchronized across the nodes,
therefore you will lose many benefits like live-migration and instant
persintant image VM deployment.

Why is it that you want to move datastore 0 to the frontend + nodes?


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Rhesa Mahendra <rhesa at lintasmediadanawa.com
> wrote:

>  Jaime,
>
> Thanks for your reply, now datastore 0 and datastore 2 are in existing
> storage box, mounted in frontend + nodes, we want to move datastore 0 and
> datastore 2 from existing storage box to frontend + nodes, could it be done?
>
> So in existing storage box just have datastore 1 and in new storage box
> just have datastore 100.
>
> Rhesa.
>
>
> On 08/26/2014 01:34 PM, Jaime Melis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  I don't entirely understand the difference between both options, could
> you explain in more detail what you mean by distributing the datastore to
> all the nodes?
>
>  Assuming your configuration is as follows: NFS Server exports datastores
> 0 and 1 -> Mounted in Frontend + Nodes
>
>  I recommend the following option:
> - Create a new Image datastore (it will have ID >= 100, in this example we
> will assume it has ID: 100)
> - Create a new exports directive in your new storage box, for example
> /storage/datastores/100
>  - Mount that mountpoint in all the nodes including the frontend in the
> following path: /var/lib/one/datastores/100
>
>  Now you can register more images in the new datastore (ID: 100), and
> since they are all persistent they will not take space in the system
> datastore (ID: 0)
>
>  Best regards,
> Jaime
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Rhesa Mahendra <
> rhesa at lintasmediadanawa.com> wrote:
>
>>  Guys, please help.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: Add New Storage Box  Date: Mon,
>> 25 Aug 2014 16:21:13 +0700  From: Rhesa Mahendra
>> <rhesa at lintasmediadanawa.com> <rhesa at lintasmediadanawa.com>  To:
>> users at lists.opennebula.org <users at lists.opennebula.org>
>> <users at lists.opennebula.org>, Javier Fontan <jfontan at opennebula.org>
>> <jfontan at opennebula.org>
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> We have plan to add a new storage box, Our existing storage :
>> /var/lib/one/datastore/0 = system
>> /var/lib/one/datastore/1 = image
>> /var/lib/one/datastore/2 = file
>> All type are from one storage box.
>>
>> We did internal discuss and we get result with two options:
>>
>> 1. We add a new storage box as an image type and define it as
>> /var/lib/one/datastore/3 = image2.
>>
>> Or
>>
>> 2. We will distribute /var/lib/one/datastore/0 = system and
>> /var/lib/one/datastore/2 = file to all nodes (all node are synced), then
>> we add the new storage box as /var/lib/one/datastore/3 = image2
>> So with this second option, the nodes only mount two path from the
>> storage box (/var/lib/one/datastore/1 = image [from existing storage
>> box]  and /var/lib/one/datastore/3 = image2 [from new storage box]). All
>> the images are persistent
>> Please give us some advise with pros and cons within this two options,
>> thanks.
>>
>> Rhesa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opennebula.org
>> http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>  Jaime Melis
> Project Engineer
> OpenNebula - Flexible Enterprise Cloud Made Simple
> www.OpenNebula.org | jmelis at opennebula.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opennebula.org
> http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
>
>


-- 
Jaime Melis
Project Engineer
OpenNebula - Flexible Enterprise Cloud Made Simple
www.OpenNebula.org | jmelis at opennebula.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opennebula.org/pipermail/users-opennebula.org/attachments/20140826/8b343cd4/attachment-0001.htm>