cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Kimlaychuk <Vadim.Kimlayc...@Elion.ee>
Subject RE: Hardware question
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:34:06 GMT
Andrija,

	This is my choise already -- FreeBSD + ZFS with SSD for ZIL/L2ARC cache + NFS.  Going to
be at production within couple of weeks. You have read my thoughts ! :)

Vadim. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrija Panic [mailto:andrija.panic@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:25 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hardware question

I'm personaly having fights with CEPh used for Primary storage - I ike CEPH VERY MUCH, but
hate it at the same time (hars word, I know...)

For Primary storage - my suggestions, play arround if you like, but avoid it at the end...till
it matures better, or simply the integration with CEPH matures better.

If you are not using 10G network and serious hardware - it's crappy experience... SSD for
Journal, etc...

It's a fight  - whenever I do some maintance on CEPH I end up swetting, clients asking why
is everythgin so slow, etc...

For our next cloud, I'm going with ZFS/NFS definitively...

Be warned :)

Cheers

On 3 March 2015 at 13:15, Vadim Kimlaychuk <Vadim.Kimlaychuk@elion.ee>
wrote:

> Mads,
>
>         CEPH is good indeed, but keep in mind that you should really 
> be expert at this type of SDS. There are points that are not visible 
> from the first look and may bring some unpleasent surprises.  For example: "default"
> option for storage I have tested was to make snapshots automatically 
> from the files being saved to primary storage. As a consequence when 
> you delete VM there are artifacts (snapshots) that are connect to 
> deleted VM not being deleted by Cloudstack (since CS does not know they exist).
>                Another point - you can't directly use it as secondary 
> storage. Need to set-up application server and run RadosGW. 
> Performance - is a big question mark here. You need NFS or iSCSI anyway.
>         What we haven't fully tested - disaster recovery or 
> malfunction simulation. You must know how to recover from all types of 
> the faults. It is very easy to lose everything by just doing wrong 
> things (or in wrong order).  From my point of view Ceph is rather 
> complex to start together with CS. It may be easy to set up, but not so easy to manage.
>         Will suggest you to run it like a year at development to make 
> yourself confident you can manage it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vadim.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mads Nordholm [mailto:mads@nordholm.dk]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:16 PM
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Hardware question
>
> Thanks a lot for your answer, Lucian. CEPH sounds like a very 
> interesting solution. I will have to do some more research on that.
>
> --
> Mads Nordholm
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mads,
> >
> > Imo, if you want that flexibility you should go with non-local storage.
> > CEPH is a popular choice here, but you will need 10 Gbps between 
> > hypervisors and storage servers if you want reasonable performance.
> > So, if you need more storage just add more CEPH servers. Need more 
> > compute, add more hypervisors.
> >
> > HTH
> > Lucian
> >
> > --
> > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> >
> > Nux!
> > www.nux.ro
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mads Nordholm" <mads@nordholm.dk>
> > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Sent: Monday, 2 March, 2015 17:19:40
> > > Subject: Hardware question
> >
> > > I am planning a small Cloudstack setup (using KVM for
> > > virtualisation)
> > that
> > > will allow me to run roughly 100 VPSs with these average requirements:
> > >
> > > - 1 core
> > > - 512 MB RAM
> > > - 20 GB SSD
> > >
> > > I am interested in input regarding a hardware configuration that 
> > > will support this, and how to best build a small setup that will 
> > > scale easily
> > as
> > > I grow. Within a year or so, I expect to have more than 1,000 
> > > guest
> > running.
> > >
> > > I basically need a setup that will not completely break the bank 
> > > as I
> > start
> > > out, but also one that will scale well as I grow. I am 
> > > particularly concerned with being able to add only the resources I 
> > > need. If I need
> > more
> > > storage, I want to be able to add only that (preferably just by 
> > > adding disks to a RAID array), and if I need more computing power, 
> > > I want to be able to add only that.
> > >
> > > Any input greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mads Nordholm
> >
>



-- 

Andrija Panić
Mime
View raw message