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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com>To: Bryan Sockel <Bryan.Sockel@altn.com>
Cc: users <users@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@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?ThanksI'd expect Gluster to take advantage of LACP, as it has replication to multiple peers (as opposed to NFS). See[1].Y.-----Original Message-----
From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com>
To: Charles Tassell <ctassell@gmail.com>
Cc: users <users@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@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@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users