[ovirt-users] Posix FS as alternative to local storage?

[Maor Lipchuk]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Eduardo Mayoral <emayoral at arsys.es> wrote:

> On 30/04/18 12:51, Tony Brian Albers wrote:
> > On 30/04/18 11:43, Eduardo Mayoral wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>      I would like to set up a new oVirt deployment with hosts that have
> >> the VMs running on local attached storage. I understand this has the
> >> requirement of having each host in its own cluster (and own datacenter,
> >> it seems, I understand the need for the dedicated cluster, not so much
> >> for the dedicated datacenter).
> >>
> >>      At the same time, I would like to have some shared storage domains
> >> so I can use it to export VMs or migrate them around hosts (probably in
> >> three stages, first migrate VM storage from local to the shared storage
> >> domain, second migrate the host (probably not possible to do a "hot"
> >> migration, but at least "cold"), third migrate the VM storage from the
> >> shared storage domain to the local storage domain of the new host).
> >>
> >>      So I thought maybe I can deploy a datacenter in shared storage
> mode,
> >> with one cluster per host. Use one or two shared storage domains for
> >> master and as an stage area for planned VM migrations as explained
> >> before, and then configure several storage domains, one per host, as
> >> posix FS . I would then deploy the VMs on the local posix FS storage
> >> domains and set affinity rules for the VMs to their hosts as needed.
> >>
> >>      Would this work? Is there a better way of achieving local storage
> >> and retaining the ability to share storage among hosts and migrate VMs?
> >>
> >>
> > Have you thought about using glusterfs? If hosts are physically close,
> > that would probably be the best solution.
> >
>
> Actually, yes, I also had glusterfs in mind. However one of the main
> reasons to use local storage is performance, and I am concerned about
> the write latencies of gluster (If using gluster, I would handle things
> so the VM runs on one of the gluster nodes hosting the VM data, so I
> assume the read latency will be close to the one I would get with local
> storage, but the gluster replica(s) will be on other hosts, so write
> latency may be significantly worse).
>
> Thanks a lot for the suggestion, it is a good one, however, the original
> question stands: Would this work? Is there a better way of achieving
> local storage and retaining the ability to share storage among hosts and
> migrate VMs?
>

Hi Eduardo,
We support shared storage domains in a local data center since oVirt 4.1.
Will this help you by any chance?


> Best regards,
>
> --
> Eduardo Mayoral.
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20180430/60d78629/attachment.html>