[ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS?

[Yaniv Kaul]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Bryan Sockel <Bryan.Sockel at altn.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the information, i did check my servers this morning, in
> total i have 4 servers configured as part of my ovirt deployment, two
> virtualization servers and 2 gluster servers, with one of the
> virtualization being the arbiter for my gluster replicated storage.
>
> From what i can see on my 2 dedicated gluster boxes i see traffic going
> out over multiple links.  On both of my virtualization hosts i am seeing
> all traffic go out via em1, and no traffic going out over the other
> interfaces.  All four interfaces are configured in a single bond as 802.3ad
> on both hosts with my logical networks attached to the bond.
>

the balancing is based on hash with either L2+L3, or L3+L4. It may well be
that both end up with the same hash and therefore go through the same link.
Y.


>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com>
> To: Bryan Sockel <Bryan.Sockel at altn.com>
> Cc: users <users at ovirt.org>
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:41:40 +0300
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Bryan Sockel <Bryan.Sockel at altn.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Was reading over this post to the group about storage options.  I am more
>> of a windows guy as appose to a linux guy, but am learning quickly and had
>> a question.  You said that LACP will not provide extra band with
>> (Especially with NFS).  Does the same hold true with GlusterFS.  We are
>> currently using GlusterFS for the file replication piece.  Does Glusterfs
>> take advantage of any multipathing?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> I'd expect Gluster to take advantage of LACP, as it has replication to
> multiple peers (as opposed to NFS). See[1].
> Y.
>
> [1] https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%
> 20Guide/Network%20Configurations%20Techniques/
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com>
>> To: Charles Tassell <ctassell at gmail.com>
>> Cc: users <users at ovirt.org>
>> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:40:00 +0300
>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Charles Tassell <ctassell at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>>   I'm about to setup an oVirt cluster with two hosts hitting a Linux
>>> storage server.  Since the Linux box can provide the storage in pretty much
>>> any form, I'm wondering which option is "best." Our primary focus is on
>>> reliability, with performance being a close second.  Since we will only be
>>> using a single storage server I was thinking NFS would probably beat out
>>> GlusterFS, and that NFSv4 would be a better choice than NFSv3.  I had
>>> assumed that that iSCSI would be better performance wise, but from what I'm
>>> seeing online that might not be the case.
>>
>>
>> NFS 4.2 is better than NFS 3 in the sense that you'll get DISCARD
>> support, which is nice.
>> Gluster probably requires 3 servers.
>> In most cases, I don't think people see the difference in performance
>> between NFS and iSCSI. The theory is that block storage is faster, but in
>> practice, most don't get to those limits where it matters really.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   Our servers will be using a 1G network backbone for regular traffic
>>> and a dedicated 10G backbone with LACP for redundancy and extra bandwidth
>>> for storage traffic if that makes a difference.
>>
>>
>> LCAP many times (especially on NFS) does not provide extra bandwidth, as
>> the (single) NFS connection tends to be sticky to a single physical link.
>> It's one of the reasons I personally prefer iSCSI with multipathing.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   I'll probably try to do some performance benchmarks with 2-3 options,
>>> but the reliability issue is a little harder to test for.  Has anyone had
>>> any particularly bad experiences with a particular storage option?  We have
>>> been using iSCSI with a Dell MD3x00 SAN and have run into a bunch of issues
>>> with the multipath setup, but that won't be a problem with the new SAN
>>> since it's only got a single controller interface.
>>
>>
>> A single controller is not very reliable. If reliability is your primary
>> concern, I suggest ensuring there is no single point of failure - or at
>> least you are aware of all of them (does the storage server have redundant
>> power supply? to two power sources? Of course in some scenarios it's an
>> overkill and perhaps not practical, but you should be aware of your weak
>> spots).
>>
>> I'd stick with what you are most comfortable managing - creating, backing
>> up, extending, verifying health, etc.
>> Y.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20170419/a2af3a97/attachment.html>