<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Bryan Sockel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bryan.Sockel@altn.com" target="_blank">Bryan.Sockel@altn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background:none 0% 0%/auto repeat scroll padding-box border-box rgba(0,0,0,0)">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?</div>
<div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background:none 0% 0%/auto repeat scroll padding-box border-box rgba(0,0,0,0)"> </div>
<div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background:none 0% 0%/auto repeat scroll padding-box border-box rgba(0,0,0,0)">Thanks</div><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div id="gmail-m_1698852641108087352signature" style="font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:13.3333px;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background:none 0% 0%/auto repeat scroll padding-box border-box rgba(0,0,0,0)"> </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd expect Gluster to take advantage of LACP, as it has replication to multiple peers (as opposed to NFS). See[1].</div><div>Y.</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Network%20Configurations%20Techniques/">https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Network%20Configurations%20Techniques/</a> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div style="font-family:tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:13.3333px;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;background:none 0% 0%/auto repeat scroll padding-box border-box rgba(0,0,0,0)">
<blockquote style="padding-right:0px;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;border-left:2px solid rgb(0,0,0);margin-right:0px">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Yaniv Kaul <<a href="mailto:ykaul@redhat.com" target="_blank">ykaul@redhat.com</a>><br>
To: Charles Tassell <<a href="mailto:ctassell@gmail.com" target="_blank">ctassell@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: users <<a href="mailto:users@ovirt.org" target="_blank">users@ovirt.org</a>><br>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:40:00 +0300<br>
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Best Storage Option: iSCSI/NFS/GlusterFS?<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Charles Tassell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ctassell@gmail.com" target="_blank">ctassell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>NFS 4.2 is better than NFS 3 in the sense that you'll get DISCARD support, which is nice.</div>
<div>Gluster probably requires 3 servers.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
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.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>It's one of the reasons I personally prefer iSCSI with multipathing.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
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.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>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).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'd stick with what you are most comfortable managing - creating, backing up, extending, verifying health, etc.</div>
<div>Y.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Users@ovirt.org" target="_blank">Users@ovirt.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/users</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>