[ovirt-users] about testing scenario

[Yedidyah Bar David]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leandro Roggerone" <lroggerone at directvla.com.ar>
> To: users at ovirt.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:33:11 AM
> Subject: [ovirt-users] about testing scenario
> 
> Hello , Everyone; My name is Leandro.
> I have been reading about virtualization features and Its benefits so Im
> thinking about deploying a virtualized IP core enviroment.
> Main services I will need to run are , dns , dhcp, radius , and openvpn.

Note that normally, ovirt requires a working dhcp/dns service on the lan,
or static configuration (ip addresses and /etc/hosts files).

> Since I have never installed ovirt , I would like to deploy a
> testing/learning scenario using two i5 with 6gb ram memory laptops.
> My idea is to run the ovirt engine in one machine and at least 3 virtual
> centos hosts in the other while I wait for the real servers.
> I have no plan of deploying  any network storage.
> 
> Some questions come to my mind:
> For the engine:
> Is there any recommended iso/distro with the ovirt package or should I
> use a machine with fedora/centos already installed  ?

Most users use fedora or centos.

You can also try the engine appliance [1]. Adding Fabian because the link
there to jenkins builds is broken, not sure where else to download it from.

[1] http://www.ovirt.org/Feature/oVirtAppliance

> 
> For the node.
> Is there any recommended iso/distro?

Either a "fat node" with fedora or centos, or ovirt-node.

If you want to see what people are actually using, you can have a look
at the results [2] of the recent survey we had...

[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/users@ovirt.org/msg25032.html

> Where should I keep the iso file of the virtualized OS. (ex centos /
> routerOS.)

In the ISO domain.

> 
> Is it possible to deploy virtualized environment without network
> storage? I would like to run everything locally.

It is, but you'll not have high-availability.

> My services requieres very fast i/o processing from the hard disk, My
> consern is that since I have 1gb network interface, the process can
> experience some delay or timeouts waiting data from the network.
> That is why I would like to keep the storage locally.

It makes sense, but in practice, if that's really important, you should
benchmark your actual application - reading, over the network, data
cached in the server's RAM, might be faster than having to seek a local
disk to find it.

Best,
-- 
Didi