As many may think contributions don't resume only to writing lines of code certainly. Thanks for the invitation. I'm sure it can be an interesting exercise.
On 24/11/2016 11:26, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Fernando Frediani <fernando.frediani@upx.com.br> wrote:
I have the similar frustrations with oVirt Oscar, specially regarding ways to managed local and shared storage.
Instead of making it easier for the many scenarios used by people seems the design process seems was a bit dificulted. Just look to one of market leaders, VMware vSphere and one can easily see the flexibility it has to move things around, even if they don't belong to the same cluster. As we are talking about Linux 'under the hood' it shouldn't need much in order to do similar things.
Perhaps people who work in the design can flexibilize a bit some of these things.
I'd like to use the opportunity and encourage the community to send patches. Both to the design as well as the implementation.The value of open source is not only in consumption, but also in participation.Active contribution is not only the best way to influence the project, but it is also a rewarding and joyful experience to the contributor.Getting into the internal bits of a project, understanding why some key design decisions were made, suggesting and implementing enhancements and changes isn't easy.It is a journey, with ups and downs, but certainly a great ride.
Feel free to reach the developers at the devel mailing list and we'll be happy to assist in onboarding, consulting, advice and reviews for your code.Y.
______________________________
On 23/11/2016 10:03, Oscar Segarra wrote:
Hi Pave, users,
Thanks a lot for your clarifications:
I'm surprised because this system is very rigid... I don't understand why oVirt has been designed with this limitations.
Regarding to my performance worry (without configuing any kind of backup):
Do you mean that 1000 vdis against a shared gluster volume provided by 10 physical hosts (the same hosts that run kvm) won't have performance problems? Do you know any similar experience?
And related to rsync, as Gluster Geocluster is fully supported, do you have experience backing up VMs using this product?
Thanks a lot.
2016-11-23 12:36 GMT+01:00 Pavel Gashev <Pax@acronis.com>:
1. You can create a datacenter per host, but you can't have a storage shared among datacenters.
2. I mean backups would add performance problems. When you rsync a disk image, in order to find the difference it reads both the source and the destination images. In other words, if you want to make daily backups, rsync will daily read everything located on local storages, plus everything located on gluster. Plus, in order to make consistent backups, you have to make VM snapshots and merge them after rsync.
From: Oscar Segarra <oscar.segarra@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 13:42
To: Pavel Gashev <Pax@acronis.com>
Hi Pavel,
1. Local storage datacenter doesn’t support multiple hosts. If you have multiple hosts, you have to have a shared storage, even it’s a hyper-converged setup.
Is it not possible to create a datacenter for each node and set up a shared storage (transversal to all hosts) for storing engine and other infraestructure virtual servers?
2. In your case most of disk and network performance would be used by backups. And a backup cycle would take more than 24 hours. Even rsync would take much resources since it has to at least read the whole disk images.
Do you mean that 1000 vdis against a shared gluster volume provided by 10 physical hosts (the same hosts that run kvm) won't have performance problems? Do you know any similar experience?
Related to rsync, the idea is launch one rsync process per physical node for backing up the contained virtual machines. But if you expect rsync to require the whole day... do you mean gluster georeplication will require 24 hours too?
Thanks a lot
2016-11-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Pavel Gashev <Pax@acronis.com>:
Oscar,
I’d make two notes:
1. Local storage datacenter doesn’t support multiple hosts. If you have multiple hosts, you have to have a shared storage, even it’s a hyper-converged setup.
2. In your case most of disk and network performance would be used by backups. And a backup cycle would take more than 24 hours. Even rsync would take much resources since it has to at least read the whole disk images.
I’d recommend a scenario with a dedicated shared storage that supports snapshots.
From: <users-bounces@ovirt.org> on behalf of Oscar Segarra <oscar.segarra@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 03:11
To: Yaniv Dary <ydary@redhat.com>
Cc: users <users@ovirt.org>
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Storage questions
Hi,
As on oVirt is it possible to attach local storage I supose it can be used to run virtual machines:
I have drawn a couple of diagrams in order to know if is it possible to set up this configuration:
1.- In on-going scenario:
Every host runs 100 vdi virtual machines whose disks are placed on local storage. There is a common gluster volume shared between all nodes.
2.- If one node fails:
oVirt has to be able to inventory the copy of machines (in our example vdi201 ... vdi300) and start them on remaining nodes.
¿Is it possible to reach this configuration with oVirt? ¿or something similar?
Making backup with the import-export procedure based on snapshot can take lot of time and resources. Incremental rsync is cheaper in terms of resources.
Thanks lot.
2016-11-22 10:49 GMT+01:00 Yaniv Dary <ydary@redhat.com>:
I suggest you setup that environment and test for the performance and report if you have issues.
Please note that currently there is no data locality guarantee, so a VM might be running on a host that doesn't have its disks.
We have APIs to do backup\restore and that is the only supported option for backup:
You can look at the Gluster DR option that was posted a while back, you can look that up.
It used geo replication and import storage domain to do the DR.
Yaniv DaryTechnical Product ManagerRed Hat Israel Ltd.34 Jerusalem RoadBuilding A, 4th floorRa'anana, Israel 4350109Tel : +972 (9) 76923068272306Email: ydary@redhat.comIRC : ydary
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Oscar Segarra <oscar.segarra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning to deploy a scalable VDI infraestructure where each phisical host can run over 100 VDIs and I'd like to deploy 10 physical hosts (1000 VDIs).
In order to avoid performance problems (replicating 1000VDIs changes over gluster network I think can provoque performance problems) I have thought to use local storage for VDI assuming that VDIs cannot be migrated between phisical hosts.
¿Is my worry founded in terms of performance?
¿Is it possible to utilize local SSD storage for VDIs?
I'd like to configure a gluster volume for backup on rotational disks (tiered+replica 2+ stripe=2) just to provide HA if a physical host fails.
¿Is it possible to use rsync for backing up VDIs?
If not ¿How can I sync/backup the VDIs running on local storage on the gluster shared storage?
If a physical host fails ¿How can I start the latest backup of the VDI on the shared gluster?
Thanks a lot
______________________________
_________________
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman /listinfo/users _________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman /listinfo/users