blair.bethwaite at gmail
Aug 8, 2012, 5:00 AM
Post #4 of 4
Regarding RHS, there is also this: http://www.tonian.com/wordpress/?p=32
Re: KVM live block migration: stability, future, docs
[In reply to]
On 8 August 2012 09:05, Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwaite [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hi Pete,
> (Apologies for top posting)
> Yes, we've been talking to an APAC RedHat storage solution architect. I
> don't want to finger him directly on list though, so please follow up
> privately if you want to make contact.
> To clarify, the advice has been that this is not a recommended workload, and
> that RHS is more suitable for scale out "near-line" and blob storage. That's
> not to say that this workload wouldn't be supported, just that it may result
> in poor random IOPS performance (which is what we've seen in early testing
> with open source Gluster). Note, e.g., that currently only RAID5/6 is
> supported for the underlying bricks in a RHS system, so you start out with
> worst case write IOPS in your LVs.
> We are still talking to RedHat about alternatives and will probably still
> test Gluster or RHS at scale as time permits. The constraints of this
> project (NeCTAR research cloud) make broader RedHat solutions difficult to
> integrate, e.g., our hypervisors must run Ubuntu. Live block migration looks
> like a reasonable option for the moment though.
> -B (sent via my pocket)
> On Aug 8, 2012 7:01 AM, "Pete Zaitcev" <zaitcev [at] redhat> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:57:17 +1000
>> Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwaite [at] gmail> wrote:
>> > It's interesting to note that RedHat do not recommend using RHS
>> > (RedHat Storage), their RHEL-based Gluster (which they own now)
>> > appliance, for live VM storage.
>> Do you have a reference for this claim?
>> -- Pete
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators [at] lists