1:50 a.m.
Hi !
I'm installing 2-node failover cluster (2 x Xeon servers with local RAID
5 / ext4 for oVirt storage domains).
Now I have a dilemma - use either GlusterFS replica 2 or stick with NFS?
4.2 Engine is running on separate hardware.
Each node have its own storage domain (on internal RAID).
All VMs must be highly available.
One of the VMs is an accounting/stock control system with FireBird SQL
server on CentOS is speed-critical.
No load balancing between nodes necessary. 2nd is just for backup if 1st
for whatever reason goes up in smoke. All VM disks must be replicated to
backup node in near real-time or in worst case each 1 - 2 hour.
GlusterFS solves this issue yet at high performance penalty.
From what I read here
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/083144.html
GlusterFS performance with oVirt is not very good right now because QEMU
uses FUSE instead of libgfapi.
What is optimal way to go on ?
Thanks in advance.
Andrei
11:10 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Andrei V <andreil1(a)starlett.lv> wrote:
Hi !
I'm installing 2-node failover cluster (2 x Xeon servers with local RAID
5 / ext4 for oVirt storage domains).
Now I have a dilemma - use either GlusterFS replica 2 or stick with NFS?
Replica 2 is not good enough, as it can leave you with split brain. It's
been discussed in the mailing list several times.
How do you plan to achieve HA with NFS? With drbd?
4.2 Engine is running on separate hardware.
Is the Engine also highly available?
Each node have its own storage domain (on internal RAID).
So some sort of replica 1 with geo-replication between them?
All VMs must be highly available.
Without shared storage, it may be tricky.
One of the VMs is an accounting/stock control system with FireBird SQL
server on CentOS is speed-critical.
But is IO the bottleneck? Are you using SSDs / NVMe drives?
I'm not familiar enough with FireBird SQL server - does it have an
application layer replication you might opt to use?
In such case, you could pass-through a NVM disk and have the application
layer perform the replication between the nodes.
No load balancing between nodes necessary. 2nd is just for backup if
1st
for whatever reason goes up in smoke. All VM disks must be replicated to
backup node in near real-time or in worst case each 1 - 2 hour.
GlusterFS solves this issue yet at high performance penalty.
The problem with a passive backup is that you never know it'll really work
when needed. This is why active-active is many time preferred.
It's also more cost effective usually - instead of some HW lying around.
From what I read here
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/083144.html
GlusterFS performance with oVirt is not very good right now because QEMU
uses FUSE instead of libgfapi.
What is optimal way to go on ?
It's hard to answer without additional details.
Y.
Thanks in advance.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
5 p.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5CCEE328B084DE9769292A6A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 01/01/2018 10:10 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Andrei V <andreil1(a)starlett.lv
<mailto:andreil1@starlett.lv>> wrote:
Hi !
I'm installing 2-node failover cluster (2 x Xeon servers with
local RAID
5 / ext4 for oVirt storage domains).
Now I have a dilemma - use either GlusterFS replica 2 or stick
with NFS?
Replica 2 is not good enough, as it can leave you with split brain.
It's been discussed in the mailing list several times.
How do you plan to achieve HA with NFS? With drbd?
Hi, Yaniv,
Thanks a lot for detailed explanation!
I know Replica 2 is not optimal solution.
Right now I have only 2 servers with internal RAIDs for nodes, and till
end of this week system had to be running in whatever condition.
May be its better to use local storage domain on each node, set export
domain on backup node, and backup VMs to 2nd backup node in timed interva=
l?
Its not highly-available yet workable solution.
4.2 Engine is running on separate hardware.
Is the Engine also highly available?
Its KVM appliance, could be launched on 2 SuSE servers.
Each node have its own storage domain (on internal RAID).
So some sort of replica 1 with geo-replication between them?
Could it be the following?
1) Local storage domain on each node
2) GlusterFS geo-replication or over these directories? Not sure this
will work.
All VMs must be highly available.
Without shared storage, it may be tricky.
Seems to be timely VM backup to 2nd node is enough for this time.
With current hardware anything above is too cumbersome to setup.
One of the VMs is an accounting/stock control system with FireBird =
SQL
server on CentOS is speed-critical.
But is IO the bottleneck? Are you using SSDs / NVMe drives?=C2=A0
I'm not familiar enough with FireBird SQL server - does it have an
application layer replication you might opt to use?
In such case, you could pass-through a NVM disk and have the
application layer perform the replication between the nodes.
=C2=A0
No load balancing between nodes necessary. 2nd is just for backup
if 1st
for whatever reason goes up in smoke. All VM disks must be
replicated to
backup node in near real-time or in worst case each 1 - 2 hour.
GlusterFS solves this issue yet at high performance penalty.
The problem with a passive backup is that you never know it'll really
work when needed. This is why active-active is many time preferred.
It's also more cost effective usually - instead of some HW lying around=
.
=C2=A0
>From what I read here
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/083144.html
<http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/083144.html>
GlusterFS performance with oVirt is not very good right now
because QEMU
uses FUSE instead of libgfapi.
What is optimal way to go on ?
It's hard to answer without additional details.
Y.
=C2=A0
Thanks in advance.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
<http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
--------------5CCEE328B084DE9769292A6A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html;
charset=3Dutf=
-8">
</head>
<body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 01/01/2018 10:10 AM, Yaniv Kaul
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"
cite=3D"mid:CAJgorsY0bkoyp3fM2e0noMJQ-6W=3D_v1K-CP6b+SfrZr8o=3DqYhQ@mail.=
gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:50 AM,
Andrei V <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a
href=3D"mailto:andreil1@starlett.lv"
target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">andreil1(a)starlett.lv</a>&gt;</sp=
an>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi !<br>
<br>
I'm installing 2-node failover cluster (2 x Xeon servers
with local RAID<br>
5 / ext4 for oVirt storage domains).<br>
Now I have a dilemma - use either GlusterFS replica 2 or
stick with NFS?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Replica 2 is not good enough, as it can leave you with
split brain. It's been discussed in the mailing list
several times.</div>
<div>How do you plan to achieve HA with NFS? With drbd?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hi, Yaniv,<br>
Thanks a lot for detailed explanation!<br>
<br>
I know Replica 2 is not optimal solution. <br>
Right now I have only 2 servers with internal RAIDs for nodes, and
till end of this week system had to be running in whatever
condition.<br>
May be its better to use local storage domain on each node, set
export domain on backup node, and backup VMs to 2nd backup node in
timed interval? <br>
Its not highly-available yet workable solution.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"
cite=3D"mid:CAJgorsY0bkoyp3fM2e0noMJQ-6W=3D_v1K-CP6b+SfrZr8o=3DqYhQ@mail.=
gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4.2 Engine is running on separate hardware.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is the Engine also highly available?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Its KVM appliance, could be launched on 2 SuSE servers.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"
cite=3D"mid:CAJgorsY0bkoyp3fM2e0noMJQ-6W=3D_v1K-CP6b+SfrZr8o=3DqYhQ@mail.=
gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Each node have its own storage domain (on internal RAID).<b=
r>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So some sort of replica 1 with geo-replication between
them?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Could it be the following?<br>
1) Local storage domain on each node<br>
2) GlusterFS geo-replication or over these directories? Not sure
this will work.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"
cite=3D"mid:CAJgorsY0bkoyp3fM2e0noMJQ-6W=3D_v1K-CP6b+SfrZr8o=3DqYhQ@mail.=
gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
All VMs must be highly available.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Without shared storage, it may be tricky.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Seems to be timely VM backup to 2nd node is enough for this time.<br>
With current hardware anything above is too cumbersome to setup.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"
cite=3D"mid:CAJgorsY0bkoyp3fM2e0noMJQ-6W=3D_v1K-CP6b+SfrZr8o=3DqYhQ@mail.=
gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
One of the VMs is an accounting/stock control system with
FireBird SQL<br>
server on CentOS is speed-critical.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But is IO the bottleneck? Are you using SSDs / NVMe
drives?=C2=A0</div>
<div>I'm not familiar enough with FireBird SQL server - does
it have an application layer replication you might opt to
use?</div>
<div>In such case, you could pass-through a NVM disk and
have the application layer perform the replication between
the nodes.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
No load balancing between nodes necessary. 2nd is just for
backup if 1st<br>
for whatever reason goes up in smoke. All VM disks must be
replicated to<br>
backup node in near real-time or in worst case each 1 - 2
hour.<br>
GlusterFS solves this issue yet at high performance
penalty.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem with a passive backup is that you never
know it'll really work when needed. This is why
active-active is many time preferred.</div>
<div>It's also more cost effective usually - instead of some
HW lying around.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
>From what I read here<br>
<a
href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/=
083144.html"
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"t=
rue">http://lists.ovirt.org/<wbr>pipermail/users/2017-July/...
ml</a><br>
GlusterFS performance with oVirt is not very good right
now because QEMU<br>
uses FUSE instead of libgfapi.<br>
<br>
What is optimal way to go on ?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's hard to answer without additional details.</div>
<div>Y.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks in advance.<br>
Andrei<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Users@ovirt.org"
moz-do-not-send=3D"true"=
Users(a)ovirt.org</a><br>
<a
href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users"
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank"
moz-do-not-send=3D"t=
rue">http://lists.ovirt.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users<...
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
--------------5CCEE328B084DE9769292A6A--
6:37 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Andrei V <andreil1(a)starlett.lv> wrote:
On 01/01/2018 10:10 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Andrei V <andreil1(a)starlett.lv> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I'm installing 2-node failover cluster (2 x Xeon servers with local RAID
> 5 / ext4 for oVirt storage domains).
> Now I have a dilemma - use either GlusterFS replica 2 or stick with NFS?
>
Replica 2 is not good enough, as it can leave you with split brain. It's
been discussed in the mailing list several times.
How do you plan to achieve HA with NFS? With drbd?
Hi, Yaniv,
Thanks a lot for detailed explanation!
I know Replica 2 is not optimal solution.
Right now I have only 2 servers with internal RAIDs for nodes, and till
end of this week system had to be running in whatever condition.
May be its better to use local storage domain on each node, set export
domain on backup node, and backup VMs to 2nd backup node in timed interval?
Its not highly-available yet workable solution.
4.2 Engine is running on separate hardware.
>
Is the Engine also highly available?
Its KVM appliance, could be launched on 2 SuSE servers.
Each node have its own storage domain (on internal RAID).
>
So some sort of replica 1 with geo-replication between them?
Could it be the following?
1) Local storage domain on each node
2) GlusterFS geo-replication or over these directories? Not sure this will
work.
> All VMs must be highly available.
>
Without shared storage, it may be tricky.
Seems to be timely VM backup to 2nd node is enough for this time.
With current hardware anything above is too cumbersome to setup.
Agreed.
Y.
One of the VMs is an accounting/stock control system with FireBird SQL
> server on CentOS is speed-critical.
>
But is IO the bottleneck? Are you using SSDs / NVMe drives?
I'm not familiar enough with FireBird SQL server - does it have an
application layer replication you might opt to use?
In such case, you could pass-through a NVM disk and have the application
layer perform the replication between the nodes.
> No load balancing between nodes necessary. 2nd is just for backup if 1st
> for whatever reason goes up in smoke. All VM disks must be replicated to
> backup node in near real-time or in worst case each 1 - 2 hour.
> GlusterFS solves this issue yet at high performance penalty.
>
The problem with a passive backup is that you never know it'll really work
when needed. This is why active-active is many time preferred.
It's also more cost effective usually - instead of some HW lying around.
>
> >From what I read here
> http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2017-July/083144.html
> GlusterFS performance with oVirt is not very good right now because QEMU
> uses FUSE instead of libgfapi.
>
> What is optimal way to go on ?
>
It's hard to answer without additional details.
Y.
> Thanks in advance.
> Andrei
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
2517
days inactive
2518
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Andrei V -
Yaniv Kaul