8:59 p.m.
Hi there,
I see that supported storage types in oVirt are: iSCSI, FCoE NFS, Local
and Gluster.
Specifically speaking about iSCSI and FCoE I see they use LVM on the
block storage level to store the Virtual Machines.
I just wanted to understand why the choice was to have LVM and if that
is the only option at the moment.
Was ever considered to have something like GFS2 ou OCFS2 in comparison
with VMFS5 and VMs running in qcow2 ou raw files on the top of it ?
I don't like LVM and have a strong preference for anything related to
storage that doesn't use it so the reason I'm looking for a different
way to use block storage without it having to be a LVM.
Thanks
Fernando
10:35 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fernando Frediani
<fernando.frediani(a)upx.com.br> wrote:
Hi there,
I see that supported storage types in oVirt are: iSCSI, FCoE NFS, Local and
Gluster.
We support iSCSI, FC, FCoE, NFS, Gluster, Ceph, Local and any posix like
shared file system.
Specifically speaking about iSCSI and FCoE I see they use LVM on the
block
storage level to store the Virtual Machines.
To be more specific, we use lvm to create volumes. Each virtual machine disk
use one volume and additional volume for each snapshot.
I just wanted to understand why the choice was to have LVM
What would use use instead?
and if that is
the only option at the moment.
This is the only option for block storage if you need snapshots or thin
provisioning.
If preallocated disk without snapshots is good enough for you, you
can attach a LUN directly to a vm. This will give the best performance.
Was ever considered to have something like GFS2 ou OCFS2 in
comparison with
VMFS5 and VMs running in qcow2 ou raw files on the top of it ?
Any posix compatible file system can be used, using raw or qcow2 files.
You can use GFS2, but I heard that it does not scale well.
I don't like LVM and have a strong preference for anything
related to
storage that doesn't use it so the reason I'm looking for a different way to
use block storage without it having to be a LVM.
You can use one of the file based storage options, or ceph.
Whats wrong with lvm?
Nir
11:23 p.m.
Hi Nir,
Thanks for clarification.
Answering your questions: The intent was to use a Posix like filesystem
similar to VMFS5 (GFS2, OCFS2, or other) where you have no choice for
how the block storage is presented to multiple servers. Yes I heard
about GFS2 escalation issues in the past, but thought it had been gone
now a days, it seems not.
I had the impression that qcow2 images have both thin-provisioning and
snapshot capabilities.
Regarding LVM I don't like the idea of having VMs buried into a LVM
volume nor the idea of troubleshooting LVM volumes when necessary.
Dealing with qcow2 images for every VM separately makes things much
easier for doing several tasks. I would say that people coming from
VMware would prefer to deal with a VMDK rather than a RDM LUN. In the
other hand I have nothing to say about LVM performance.
Best
Fernando
Em 14/06/2016 16:35, Nir Soffer escreveu:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fernando Frediani
<fernando.frediani(a)upx.com.br> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I see that supported storage types in oVirt are: iSCSI, FCoE NFS, Local and
> Gluster.
We support iSCSI, FC, FCoE, NFS, Gluster, Ceph, Local and any posix like
shared file system.
> Specifically speaking about iSCSI and FCoE I see they use LVM on the block
> storage level to store the Virtual Machines.
To be more specific, we use lvm to create volumes. Each virtual machine disk
use one volume and additional volume for each snapshot.
> I just wanted to understand why the choice was to have LVM
What would use use instead?
> and if that is
> the only option at the moment.
This is the only option for block storage if you need snapshots or thin
provisioning.
If preallocated disk without snapshots is good enough for you, you
can attach a LUN directly to a vm. This will give the best performance.
> Was ever considered to have something like GFS2 ou OCFS2 in comparison with
> VMFS5 and VMs running in qcow2 ou raw files on the top of it ?
Any posix compatible file system can be used, using raw or qcow2 files.
You can use GFS2, but I heard that it does not scale well.
> I don't like LVM and have a strong preference for anything related to
> storage that doesn't use it so the reason I'm looking for a different way to
> use block storage without it having to be a LVM.
You can use one of the file based storage options, or ceph.
Whats wrong with lvm?
Nir
12:17 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Fernando Frediani
<fernando.frediani(a)upx.com.br> wrote:
Hi Nir,
Thanks for clarification.
Answering your questions: The intent was to use a Posix like filesystem
similar to VMFS5 (GFS2, OCFS2, or other) where you have no choice for how
the block storage is presented to multiple servers. Yes I heard about GFS2
escalation issues in the past, but thought it had been gone now a days, it
seems not.
I had the impression that qcow2 images have both thin-provisioning and
snapshot capabilities.
Yes, using file based storage, you have both snapshots and thin provisioning,
this is the most reliable way to get thin provisioning in ovirt.
But then you pay for the file system overhead, where in block storage the qemu
image is using the lv directly.
In block storage we use multipath, so if you have mutiple nics and networks,
you get better reliability and performance.
Regarding LVM I don't like the idea of having VMs buried into a
LVM volume
nor the idea of troubleshooting LVM volumes when necessary. Dealing with
qcow2 images for every VM separately makes things much easier for doing
several tasks. I would say that people coming from VMware would prefer to
deal with a VMDK rather than a RDM LUN. In the other hand I have nothing to
say about LVM performance.
LVM has its own issues with many lvs on the same vg - we recommend to
use up to 350 lvs per vg. If you need more, you need to use another vg.
The best would be to try both and use the best storage for the particular
use case.
Nir
12:37 a.m.
Hi Nir,
I wouldn't say that the performance coming from LVM is significantly
better than from a filesystem if the last is well built. In VMware the
performance from a VMDK running on the top of VMFS5 and from a RDM has
no significant gain one over another. I've always preferred to have
machines in a filesystem for the ease of management. In some cases with
hundreds of them in a single filesystem never faced performance issues.
The bottleneck normally is down to the storage architecture (Storage
Controller, RAID config, etc).
The multipath is certainly a plus that helps in certain cases.
I guess the answer to my original question is clear. If I want to use
block storage shared among different hosts there is no choice in oVirt
other than LVM.
In a particular case I have a storage shared via a kind of internal SAS
backplane to all servers. The only alternative to that would be dedicate
a server to own the storage and export it as NFS, but in that case there
would be some looses in the terms of hardware an reliability.
Thanks
Fernando
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Fernando Frediani
<fernando.frediani(a)upx.com.br> wrote:
> Hi Nir,
> Thanks for clarification.
>
> Answering your questions: The intent was to use a Posix like filesystem
> similar to VMFS5 (GFS2, OCFS2, or other) where you have no choice for how
> the block storage is presented to multiple servers. Yes I heard about GFS2
> escalation issues in the past, but thought it had been gone now a days, it
> seems not.
>
> I had the impression that qcow2 images have both thin-provisioning and
> snapshot capabilities.
Yes, using file based storage, you have both snapshots and thin provisioning,
this is the most reliable way to get thin provisioning in ovirt.
But then you pay for the file system overhead, where in block storage the qemu
image is using the lv directly.
In block storage we use multipath, so if you have mutiple nics and networks,
you get better reliability and performance.
> Regarding LVM I don't like the idea of having VMs buried into a LVM volume
> nor the idea of troubleshooting LVM volumes when necessary. Dealing with
> qcow2 images for every VM separately makes things much easier for doing
> several tasks. I would say that people coming from VMware would prefer to
> deal with a VMDK rather than a RDM LUN. In the other hand I have nothing to
> say about LVM performance.
LVM has its own issues with many lvs on the same vg - we recommend to
use up to 350 lvs per vg. If you need more, you need to use another vg.
The best would be to try both and use the best storage for the particular
use case.
Nir
3082
days inactive
3082
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Fernando Frediani -
Nir Soffer