On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 09:30 +0100, squadra wrote:
try it, i bet that you will get better latency results with proper configured iscsitarget/initiator.
btw, freebsd 10 includes kernel based iscsi-target now. which works pretty good for me since some time, easy to setup and working performing well (zfs not to forget ;) )
Yeah I see 10´s reached RC4 now, probably´ll be out for real soon, and then a while more to wait for 10.1 to have longer support:) Have you compared the new iscsi-target with "ports/istgt" btw? /K
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Markus Stockhausen <stockhausen@collogia.de> wrote: > Von: Karli Sjöberg [Karli.Sjoberg@slu.se] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2014 08:48 > An: squadra@gmail.com > Cc: users@ovirt.org; Markus Stockhausen > Betreff: Re: [Users] Experience with low cost NFS-Storage as VM-Storage? >
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 08:35 +0100, squadra wrote: > Right, try multipathing with nfs :) > > Yes, that´s what I meant, maybe could have been more clear about that, > sorry. Multipathing (and the load-balancing it brings) is what really > separates iSCSI from NFS. > > What I´d be interested in knowing is at what breaking-point, not having > multipathing becomes an issue. I mean, we might not have such a big > VM-park, about 300-400 VMs. But so far running without multipathing > using good ole' NFS and no performance issues this far. Would be good to > know beforehand if we´re headed for a wall of some sorts, and about > "when" we´ll hit it... > >/K
If that is really a concern for the initial question about a "low cost NFS solution" LACP on the NFS filer side will mitigate the bottleneck from too many hypervisors.
My personal headache is the I/O performance of QEMU. More details here: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2013-12/msg00028.html Or to make it short: Each I/O in a VM gets a penalty of 370us. That is much more than in ESX environments.
I would be interested if this the same in ISCSI setups.
Markus
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!