* Re: [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN
@ 2013-06-13 4:58 99% ` Norman Rieß
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Norman Rieß @ 2013-06-13 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Am 12.06.2013 16:20, schrieb Nick Khamis:
> Hello Nick,
>
> the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you
> need a fibre channel SAN.
> Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is
> delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance.
> An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is
> dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS
> comes back up without any fuzz.
> Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something
> like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing
> happened.
> We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable.
> Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to
> increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your
> share on the go.
>
> So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel
> SAN, don't!
>
> Regards,
> Norman
>
>
> Hello Norman,
>
> Thank you so much for your response. That is a very interesting! We
> currently use an NFS to house home directories etc.., and I love how it
> just bloody works!!! We do however need block level sharing. The idea is
> the
> typical host with multiple VM with virtual HDDs residing on a SAN.....
> We figured
> fibre would give us better performance (for the mean time!!!).
>
> It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI
> or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type
> of faults that lead to whatever failures? The only difference being of
> course, on is on fibre, and the other using ethernet. Given the price
> of fibre right now, it's quite cheap and we though double the throughput,
> why not?
>
> We could have the VMs taking storage from DAS, and mount to an
> external NFS for home/ etc... Not sure how it would perform in terms of
> IO rates, and also, the idea of block level allocation just seems so much
> cleaner no?
>
> PS I am new to SAN, please excuse me.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Nick
Hello,
our setup is that we open up pools of up to 20 hosts which all mount the
same NFS share which holds sparse file images as virtual hdds of the
VMs. So life migration is possible, other than holding the VMs on local
storage.
Our never clusters are equipped with hosts using 10 gigabit ethernet.
Two 10GE ports are bonded to provide redundancy and balancing. Every
host features 2 bonds, one for storage vlans and one for the production
vlans. Performance is not the issue.
Our older clusters do this with 1 gigabit ethernet and three bonds.
We have some high performance services and throughput never was a problem.
So i recomment NFS. But it really depends on your prefferation.
Regards,
Norman
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2013-06-11 14:19 [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN Nick Khamis
2013-06-12 4:57 ` Norman Rieß
2013-06-12 14:20 ` Nick Khamis
2013-06-13 4:58 99% ` Norman Rieß
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox