This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs

To: Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs
From: Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:09:54 +0200
Cc: yue <ooolinux@xxxxxxx>, Christian Zoffoli <czoffoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:11:43 -0800
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=softdux.com; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type:X-Assp-ID:X-Assp-Version:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=sHnYX+2Vsva8TuG9VTKiFu7fdZyZVt6CoKeKCe3HindQq3+E1TRswsFTqS28JwEm4adKWWl4RZFKPZ0weNqk/TQ3qJkQgg54TpVVWpxAcEZn7tyhAC41Ip0WEw9g/BJP;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110127083846.GE29664@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <AANLkTin+K5G10_03qLRT_yqCRELu339roLEHy1bVFoqR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <994429490908070648s69eed40eua19efc43c3eb85a7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D3FF9BC.40601@xxxxxxxxxxx> <sig.4007da378a.AANLkTiku=-RhcyUZVHmwnJ18+Az6Fk5CxdEjKdHQKJ54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D4032C7.9000003@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1daff6e.e808.12dc3148556.Coremail.ooolinux@xxxxxxx> <4D40655B.20100@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20110127083846.GE29664@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Adi Kriegisch <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>> Il 26/01/2011 17:07, yue ha scritto:
>> > yes, there has no a good silution.
>> > 1.san+gfs2(ocfs2)
>> > 2.san+clvm
>> > 3san+clvm+gfs2(ocfs2)
>> > 4san+normal filesystem, ext3.....
>> > which has the better performance?
>> 4 if your SAN exports as many luns as your VM disks
>> 2 is better IMHO ...more flexible, not so high overhead
> 100% ACK. The best thing about this: There is no overhead in using CLVM:
> The cluster locking is only required when modifying LVs. For the rest of
> the time performance is (most probably) slightly better than when using
> LUNs directly because LVM will take care of readahead dynamically.
> -- Adi
> _______________________________________________

How would you do this?

Export LUN1 from SAN1 & LUN1 from SAN2 to the same client PC, and then
setup cLVM on top of the 2 LUN's?

What do you then do if you want redundancy, between 2 client PC's, i.e
similar to RAID1 ?

Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532

Xen-users mailing list