[ovirt-users] Trying to understand the mixed storage configuration options.
gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com
Thu May 12 07:50:42 UTC 2016
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Jason Ziemba <jason at ziemba.net> wrote:
> I'm fairly new to oVirt (coming from ProxMox) and trying to wrap my head
> around the mixed (local/NAS) data domain options that are available.
> I'm trying to configure a set of systems to have local storage, as their
> primary data storage domain, though also want to have the ability to have a
> NAS based data domain for guests that are 'mobile' between hosts.
> Currently I'm able to do one or the other, but not both (so it seems).
> When I put all of the systems in to a single cluster (or single
> data-center) I'm able to have the shared data domain, though have only
> found the ability to configure one system for local storage (not all of
> them). When I split them out in to separate data centers, they all have
> their local data domain working, but only a single dc is able to access the
> shared data domain at a time.
> Am I missing something along the way (probably fairly obvious) that does
> exactly what I'm outlining, or is this functionality not available by
> Any assistance/guidance is greatly appreciated.
Already asked about one month ago. See thread here:
The last comment by Neil was to provide reasons for this need, as probably
it is not on the roadmap.
But 4.0 version is only at alpha stage so we can influence it, if we push.
Actually already in 2013 it was asked and Itamar at that time wrote that
the team was working on eliminating this limit.. don't know what exactly
was the design limitation from a technical point of view. See thread with
question from (another one... ;-) Jason here:
and Itamar final comment here:
I'm favorable to have the chance to configure inter-mixed storage, local
and not, especially for testing purposes, but not only, where you have
plenty of storage you cannot dedicate to oVirt VMs now.
The workaround is to have it seen as NFS storage, but it makes sense only
for one-host configuration in my opinion, and it overloads network when it
is not necessary.
Can we vote for it? Do we need to open an RFE?
BTW: I think insipration should also come form what the leaders are doing
(in the positive sense) and in what's new for vSphere 6 here:
you find explicitly inside the "VMware vSphere Fault Tolerance
Enhancements", so in a critical infrastructure point:
There have also been enhancements in how vSphere FT handles storage. It now
creates a complete copy of
the entire virtual machine, resulting in total protection for virtual
machine storage in addition to compute
and memory. It also increases the options for storage by enabling the files
of the primary and secondary
virtual machines to be stored on shared as well as local storage. This
results in increased protection,
reduced risk, and improved flexibility
food to the discussion ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Users