On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All, > > I've playing with ovirt self hosted engine setup and I even use it to > production for several VM. The setup I have is 3 server with gluster > storage in replica 2+1 (1 arbiter). > The data storage domain where VMs are stored is mounted with gluster > through ovirt. The performance I get for the VMs is very low and I was > thinking to switch and mount the same storage through NFS instead of > glusterfs. > I don't see how it'll improve performance. I suggest you share the gluster configuration (as well as the storage HW) so we can understand why the performance is low. Y. > > The only think I am hesitant is how can I ensure high availability of the > storage when I loose one server? I was thinking to have at /etc/hosts sth > like below: > > 10.100.100.1 nfsmount > 10.100.100.2 nfsmount > 10.100.100.3 nfsmount > > then use nfsmount as the server name when adding this domain through > ovirt GUI. > Are there any other more elegant solutions? What do you do for such cases? > Note: gluster has the back-vol-file option which provides a lean way to > have redundancy on the mount point and I am using this when mounting with > glusterfs. > > Thanx > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > For a first idea I use: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1GB count=1 > This is an incorrect way to test performance, for various reasons: 1. You are not using oflag=direct , thus not using DirectIO, but using cache. 2. It's unrealistic - it is very uncommon to write large blocks of zeros (sometimes during FS creation or wiping). Certainly not 1GB 3. It is a single thread of IO - again, unrealistic for VM's IO. I suggest using fio and such. See https://github.com/pcuzner/fio-tools for example. > > When testing on the gluster mount point using above command I hardly get > 10MB/s. (On the same time the network traffic hardly reaches 100Mbit). > > When testing our of the gluster (for example at /root) I get 600 - > 700MB/s. > That's very fast - from 4 disks doing RAID5? Impressive (unless you use caching!). Are those HDDs or SSDs/NVMe? > > When I mount the gluster volume with NFS and test on it I get 90 - 100 > MB/s, (almost 10x from gluster results) which is the max I can get > considering I have only 1 Gbit network for the storage. > > Also, when using glusterfs the general VM performance is very poor and > disk write benchmarks show that is it at least 4 times slower then when the > VM is hosted on the same data store when NFS mounted. > > I don't know why I hitting such a significant performance penalty, and > every possible tweak that I was able to find out there did not make any > difference on the performance. > > The hardware I am using is pretty decent for the purposes intended: > 3 nodes, each node having with 32 MB of RAM, 16 physical CPU cores, 2 TB > of storage in RAID5 (4 disks), of which 1.5 TB are sliced for the data > store of ovirt where VMs are stored. >

You have not mentioned your NIC speeds. Please ensure all work well, with 10g. Is the network dedicated for Gluster traffic? How are they connected? > > The gluster configuration is the following: > Which version of Gluster are you using? > > Volume Name: vms > Type: Replicate > Volume ID: 4513340d-7919-498b-bfe0-d836b5cea40b > Status: Started > Snapshot Count: 0 > Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 > Transport-type: tcp > Bricks: > Brick1: gluster0:/gluster/vms/brick > Brick2: gluster1:/gluster/vms/brick > Brick3: gluster2:/gluster/vms/brick (arbiter) > Options Reconfigured: > nfs.export-volumes: on > nfs.disable: off > performance.readdir-ahead: on > transport.address-family: inet > performance.quick-read: off > performance.read-ahead: off > performance.io-cache: off > performance.stat-prefetch: on > I think this should be off. > performance.low-prio-threads: 32 > network.remote-dio: off > I think this should be enabled. > cluster.eager-lock: off > cluster.quorum-type: auto > cluster.server-quorum-type: server > cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full > cluster.locking-scheme: granular > cluster.shd-max-threads: 8 > cluster.shd-wait-qlength: 10000 > features.shard: on > user.cifs: off > storage.owner-uid: 36 > storage.owner-gid: 36 > network.ping-timeout: 30 > performance.strict-o-direct: on > cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable > features.shard-block-size: 64MB > I'm not sure if this should not be 512MB. I don't remember the last resolution on this. Y. > performance.client-io-threads: on > client.event-threads: 4 > server.event-threads: 4 > performance.write-behind-window-size: 4MB > performance.cache-size: 1GB > > In case I can provide any other details let me know. > What is your tuned profile? > At the moment I already switched to gluster based NFS but I have a > similar setup with 2 nodes where the data store is mounted through gluster > (and again relatively good hardware) where I might check any tweaks or > improvements on this setup. > > Thanx > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I've playing with ovirt self hosted engine setup and I even use it to >>> production for several VM. The setup I have is 3 server with gluster >>> storage in replica 2+1 (1 arbiter). >>> The data storage domain where VMs are stored is mounted with gluster >>> through ovirt. The performance I get for the VMs is very low and I was >>> thinking to switch and mount the same storage through NFS instead of >>> glusterfs. >>> >> >> I don't see how it'll improve performance. >> I suggest you share the gluster configuration (as well as the storage >> HW) so we can understand why the performance is low. >> Y. >> >> >>> >>> The only think I am hesitant is how can I ensure high availability of >>> the storage when I loose one server? I was thinking to have at /etc/hosts >>> sth like below: >>> >>> 10.100.100.1 nfsmount >>> 10.100.100.2 nfsmount >>> 10.100.100.3 nfsmount >>> >>> then use nfsmount as the server name when adding this domain through >>> ovirt GUI. >>> Are there any other more elegant solutions? What do you do for such >>> cases? >>> Note: gluster has the back-vol-file option which provides a lean way to >>> have redundancy on the mount point and I am using this when mounting with >>> glusterfs. >>> >>> Thanx >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >> >

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> For a first idea I use: >>> >>> dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1GB count=1 >>> >> >> This is an incorrect way to test performance, for various reasons: >> 1. You are not using oflag=direct , thus not using DirectIO, but using >> cache. >> 2. It's unrealistic - it is very uncommon to write large blocks of zeros >> (sometimes during FS creation or wiping). Certainly not 1GB >> 3. It is a single thread of IO - again, unrealistic for VM's IO. >> >> I forgot to mention that I include oflag=direct in my tests. I agree though that dd is not the correct way to test, hence I mentioned I just use it to get a first feel. More tests are done within the VM benchmarking its disk IO (with tools like IOmeter). I suggest using fio and such. See https://github.com/pcuzner/fio-tools >> for example. >> > Do you have any recommended config file to use for VM workload?

>> >>> >>> When testing on the gluster mount point using above command I hardly >>> get 10MB/s. (On the same time the network traffic hardly reaches 100Mbit). >>> >>> When testing our of the gluster (for example at /root) I get 600 - >>> 700MB/s. >>> >> >> That's very fast - from 4 disks doing RAID5? Impressive (unless you use >> caching!). Are those HDDs or SSDs/NVMe? >> >> > These are SAS disks. But there is also a RAID controller with 1GB cache. >>> When I mount the gluster volume with NFS and test on it I get 90 - 100 >>> MB/s, (almost 10x from gluster results) which is the max I can get >>> considering I have only 1 Gbit network for the storage. >>> >>> Also, when using glusterfs the general VM performance is very poor and >>> disk write benchmarks show that is it at least 4 times slower then when the >>> VM is hosted on the same data store when NFS mounted. >>> >>> I don't know why I hitting such a significant performance penalty, and >>> every possible tweak that I was able to find out there did not make any >>> difference on the performance. >>> >>> The hardware I am using is pretty decent for the purposes intended: >>> 3 nodes, each node having with 32 MB of RAM, 16 physical CPU cores, 2 >>> TB of storage in RAID5 (4 disks), of which 1.5 TB are sliced for the data >>> store of ovirt where VMs are stored. >>> >> > I forgot to ask why are you using RAID 5 with 4 disks and not RAID 10? > Same usable capacity, higher performance, same protection and faster > recovery, I believe. > Correction: there are 5 disks of 600GB each. The main reason going with RAID 5 was the capacity. With RAID 10 I can use only 4 of them and get only 1.1 TB usable, with RAID 5 I get 2.2 TB usable. I agree going with RAID 10 (+ one additional drive to go with 6 drives) would be better but this is what I have now. Y. > > >> You have not mentioned your NIC speeds. Please ensure all work well, >> with 10g. >> Is the network dedicated for Gluster traffic? How are they connected? >> >> > I have mentioned that I have 1 Gbit dedicated for the storage. A different network is used for this and a dedicated 1Gbit switch. The throughput has been confirmed between all nodes with iperf.

I know 10Gbit would be better, but when using native gluster at ovirt the network pipe was hardly reaching 100Mbps thus the bottleneck was gluster and not the network. If I can saturate 1Gbit and I still have performance issues then I may think to go with 10Gbit. With NFS on top gluster I see traffic reaching 800Mbit when testing with dd which is much better.

>>> The gluster configuration is the following: >>> >> >> Which version of Gluster are you using? >> >> > The version is 3.8.12

>>> Volume Name: vms >>> Type: Replicate >>> Volume ID: 4513340d-7919-498b-bfe0-d836b5cea40b >>> Status: Started >>> Snapshot Count: 0 >>> Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 >>> Transport-type: tcp >>> Bricks: >>> Brick1: gluster0:/gluster/vms/brick >>> Brick2: gluster1:/gluster/vms/brick >>> Brick3: gluster2:/gluster/vms/brick (arbiter) >>> Options Reconfigured: >>> nfs.export-volumes: on >>> nfs.disable: off >>> performance.readdir-ahead: on >>> transport.address-family: inet >>> performance.quick-read: off >>> performance.read-ahead: off >>> performance.io-cache: off >>> performance.stat-prefetch: on >>> >> >> I think this should be off. >> >> >>> performance.low-prio-threads: 32 >>> network.remote-dio: off >>> >> >> I think this should be enabled. >> >> >>> cluster.eager-lock: off >>> cluster.quorum-type: auto >>> cluster.server-quorum-type: server >>> cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full >>> cluster.locking-scheme: granular >>> cluster.shd-max-threads: 8 >>> cluster.shd-wait-qlength: 10000 >>> features.shard: on >>> user.cifs: off >>> storage.owner-uid: 36 >>> storage.owner-gid: 36 >>> network.ping-timeout: 30 >>> performance.strict-o-direct: on >>> cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable >>> features.shard-block-size: 64MB >>> >> >> I'm not sure if this should not be 512MB. I don't remember the last >> resolution on this. >> Y. >> >> >>> performance.client-io-threads: on >>> client.event-threads: 4 >>> server.event-threads: 4 >>> performance.write-behind-window-size: 4MB >>> performance.cache-size: 1GB >>> >>> I have been playing with all above with very little difference on performance I was getting. In case I can provide any other details let me know. >>> >> >> What is your tuned profile? >> >> > the tuned profile is virtual-host At the moment I already switched to gluster based NFS but I have a similar >>> setup with 2 nodes where the data store is mounted through gluster (and >>> again relatively good hardware) where I might check any tweaks or >>> improvements on this setup. >>> >>> Thanx >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I've playing with ovirt self hosted engine setup and I even use it to >>>>> production for several VM. The setup I have is 3 server with gluster >>>>> storage in replica 2+1 (1 arbiter). >>>>> The data storage domain where VMs are stored is mounted with gluster >>>>> through ovirt. The performance I get for the VMs is very low and I was >>>>> thinking to switch and mount the same storage through NFS instead of >>>>> glusterfs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see how it'll improve performance. >>>> I suggest you share the gluster configuration (as well as the storage >>>> HW) so we can understand why the performance is low. >>>> Y. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The only think I am hesitant is how can I ensure high availability of >>>>> the storage when I loose one server? I was thinking to have at /etc/hosts >>>>> sth like below: >>>>> >>>>> 10.100.100.1 nfsmount >>>>> 10.100.100.2 nfsmount >>>>> 10.100.100.3 nfsmount >>>>> >>>>> then use nfsmount as the server name when adding this domain through >>>>> ovirt GUI. >>>>> Are there any other more elegant solutions? What do you do for such >>>>> cases? >>>>> Note: gluster has the back-vol-file option which provides a lean way >>>>> to have redundancy on the mount point and I am using this when mounting >>>>> with glusterfs. >>>>> >>>>> Thanx >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Users mailing list >>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >

I don't see any other bottleneck. CPUs are quite idle. Seems that the load is mostly due to high latency on IO. Reading further the gluster docs: https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-specs/blob/master/ done/GlusterFS%203.5/libgfapi%20with%20qemu%20libvirt.md I see that I am missing the following options: /etc/glusterfs/glusterd.vol : option rpc-auth-allow-insecure on gluster volume set vms gluster server.allow-insecure on It says that the above allow qemu to use libgfapi. When checking the VM XML, I don't see any gluster protocol at the disk drive: <disk type='file' device='disk' snapshot='no'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='none' error_policy='stop' io='threads'/> <source file='/rhev/data-center/00000001-0001-0001-0001- 000000000311/94741028-e765-4300-a618-c3eeb7dbb7c8/images/ 222a1312-5efa-4731-8914-9a9d24dccba5/d691e6b3-c8e7- 4820-9042-555d30c8a21b'/> <target dev='sda' bus='scsi'/> <serial>222a1312-5efa-4731-8914-9a9d24dccba5</serial> <boot order='1'/> <address type='drive' controller='0' bus='0' target='0' unit='0'/> </disk> While at gluster docs it mentions the below type of disk: <disk type='network' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='none'/> <source protocol='gluster' name='distrepvol/vm3.img'> <host name='10.70.37.106' port='24007'/> </source> <target dev='vda' bus='virtio'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' function='0x0'/> </disk> Does the above indicate that ovirt/qemu is not using libgfapi but FUSE only? This could be the reason of such slow perf. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For a first idea I use: >>>>> >>>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1GB count=1 >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is an incorrect way to test performance, for various reasons: >>>> 1. You are not using oflag=direct , thus not using DirectIO, but using >>>> cache. >>>> 2. It's unrealistic - it is very uncommon to write large blocks of >>>> zeros (sometimes during FS creation or wiping). Certainly not 1GB >>>> 3. It is a single thread of IO - again, unrealistic for VM's IO. >>>> >>>> I forgot to mention that I include oflag=direct in my tests. I agree >> though that dd is not the correct way to test, hence I mentioned I just use >> it to get a first feel. More tests are done within the VM benchmarking its >> disk IO (with tools like IOmeter). >> >> I suggest using fio and such. See https://github.com/pcuzner/fio-tools >>>> for example. >>>> >>> Do you have any recommended config file to use for VM workload? >> > > Desktops and Servers VMs behave quite differently, so not really. But the > 70/30 job is typically a good baseline. > > >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When testing on the gluster mount point using above command I hardly >>>>> get 10MB/s. (On the same time the network traffic hardly reaches 100Mbit). >>>>> >>>>> When testing our of the gluster (for example at /root) I get 600 - >>>>> 700MB/s. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's very fast - from 4 disks doing RAID5? Impressive (unless you >>>> use caching!). Are those HDDs or SSDs/NVMe? >>>> >>>> >>> These are SAS disks. But there is also a RAID controller with 1GB cache. >> >> >>>>> When I mount the gluster volume with NFS and test on it I get 90 - >>>>> 100 MB/s, (almost 10x from gluster results) which is the max I can get >>>>> considering I have only 1 Gbit network for the storage. >>>>> >>>>> Also, when using glusterfs the general VM performance is very poor >>>>> and disk write benchmarks show that is it at least 4 times slower then when >>>>> the VM is hosted on the same data store when NFS mounted. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know why I hitting such a significant performance penalty, >>>>> and every possible tweak that I was able to find out there did not make any >>>>> difference on the performance. >>>>> >>>>> The hardware I am using is pretty decent for the purposes intended: >>>>> 3 nodes, each node having with 32 MB of RAM, 16 physical CPU cores, 2 >>>>> TB of storage in RAID5 (4 disks), of which 1.5 TB are sliced for the data >>>>> store of ovirt where VMs are stored. >>>>> >>>> >>> I forgot to ask why are you using RAID 5 with 4 disks and not RAID 10? >>> Same usable capacity, higher performance, same protection and faster >>> recovery, I believe. >>> >> Correction: there are 5 disks of 600GB each. The main reason going with >> RAID 5 was the capacity. With RAID 10 I can use only 4 of them and get only >> 1.1 TB usable, with RAID 5 I get 2.2 TB usable. I agree going with RAID 10 >> (+ one additional drive to go with 6 drives) would be better but this is >> what I have now. >> >> Y. >>> >>> >>>> You have not mentioned your NIC speeds. Please ensure all work well, >>>> with 10g. >>>> Is the network dedicated for Gluster traffic? How are they connected? >>>> >>>> >>> I have mentioned that I have 1 Gbit dedicated for the storage. A >> different network is used for this and a dedicated 1Gbit switch. The >> throughput has been confirmed between all nodes with iperf. >> > > Oh.... With 1Gb, you can't get more than 100+MBps... > > >> I know 10Gbit would be better, but when using native gluster at ovirt >> the network pipe was hardly reaching 100Mbps thus the bottleneck was >> gluster and not the network. If I can saturate 1Gbit and I still have >> performance issues then I may think to go with 10Gbit. With NFS on top >> gluster I see traffic reaching 800Mbit when testing with dd which is much >> better. >> > > Agreed. Do you see the bottleneck elsewhere? CPU? > > >> >> >>>>> The gluster configuration is the following: >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which version of Gluster are you using? >>>> >>>> >>> The version is 3.8.12 >> > > I think it's a very old release (near end of life?). I warmly suggest > 3.10.x or 3.12. > There are performance improvements (AFAIR) in both. > Y. > > >> >>>>> Volume Name: vms >>>>> Type: Replicate >>>>> Volume ID: 4513340d-7919-498b-bfe0-d836b5cea40b >>>>> Status: Started >>>>> Snapshot Count: 0 >>>>> Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 >>>>> Transport-type: tcp >>>>> Bricks: >>>>> Brick1: gluster0:/gluster/vms/brick >>>>> Brick2: gluster1:/gluster/vms/brick >>>>> Brick3: gluster2:/gluster/vms/brick (arbiter) >>>>> Options Reconfigured: >>>>> nfs.export-volumes: on >>>>> nfs.disable: off >>>>> performance.readdir-ahead: on >>>>> transport.address-family: inet >>>>> performance.quick-read: off >>>>> performance.read-ahead: off >>>>> performance.io-cache: off >>>>> performance.stat-prefetch: on >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this should be off. >>>> >>>> >>>>> performance.low-prio-threads: 32 >>>>> network.remote-dio: off >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this should be enabled. >>>> >>>> >>>>> cluster.eager-lock: off >>>>> cluster.quorum-type: auto >>>>> cluster.server-quorum-type: server >>>>> cluster.data-self-heal-algorithm: full >>>>> cluster.locking-scheme: granular >>>>> cluster.shd-max-threads: 8 >>>>> cluster.shd-wait-qlength: 10000 >>>>> features.shard: on >>>>> user.cifs: off >>>>> storage.owner-uid: 36 >>>>> storage.owner-gid: 36 >>>>> network.ping-timeout: 30 >>>>> performance.strict-o-direct: on >>>>> cluster.granular-entry-heal: enable >>>>> features.shard-block-size: 64MB >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if this should not be 512MB. I don't remember the last >>>> resolution on this. >>>> Y. >>>> >>>> >>>>> performance.client-io-threads: on >>>>> client.event-threads: 4 >>>>> server.event-threads: 4 >>>>> performance.write-behind-window-size: 4MB >>>>> performance.cache-size: 1GB >>>>> >>>>> I have been playing with all above with very little difference on >> performance I was getting. >> >> In case I can provide any other details let me know. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is your tuned profile? >>>> >>>> >>> the tuned profile is virtual-host >> >> At the moment I already switched to gluster based NFS but I have a >>>>> similar setup with 2 nodes where the data store is mounted through gluster >>>>> (and again relatively good hardware) where I might check any tweaks or >>>>> improvements on this setup. >>>>> >>>>> Thanx >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Abi Askushi <rightkicktech(a)gmail.com >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've playing with ovirt self hosted engine setup and I even use it >>>>>>> to production for several VM. The setup I have is 3 server with gluster >>>>>>> storage in replica 2+1 (1 arbiter). >>>>>>> The data storage domain where VMs are stored is mounted with >>>>>>> gluster through ovirt. The performance I get for the VMs is very low and I >>>>>>> was thinking to switch and mount the same storage through NFS instead of >>>>>>> glusterfs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see how it'll improve performance. >>>>>> I suggest you share the gluster configuration (as well as the >>>>>> storage HW) so we can understand why the performance is low. >>>>>> Y. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only think I am hesitant is how can I ensure high availability >>>>>>> of the storage when I loose one server? I was thinking to have at >>>>>>> /etc/hosts sth like below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10.100.100.1 nfsmount >>>>>>> 10.100.100.2 nfsmount >>>>>>> 10.100.100.3 nfsmount >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then use nfsmount as the server name when adding this domain >>>>>>> through ovirt GUI. >>>>>>> Are there any other more elegant solutions? What do you do for such >>>>>>> cases? >>>>>>> Note: gluster has the back-vol-file option which provides a lean >>>>>>> way to have redundancy on the mount point and I am using this when mounting >>>>>>> with glusterfs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Users mailing list >>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org >>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >