On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Wouter van Eekelen <
me@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> You should have a SAN and have no disks in the actual servers.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Martins Lazdans <
marrtins@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> What do you recommend for such configuration:
>> Say, we have 4 servers, each with 12 drives. I want to distribute and
>> replicate xen images over all servers in such manner that:
>> *) live migration works
>> *) *any* one of 4 server may fail still leaving *all* images accessible.
>> *) Will work over Infiniband (not only using ipoib)
>> *) It would be a big plus, if filesystem do not require separate
>> metadata/transaction/management/you-name-it server or at least provide
>> machanism for transparent fileover.
>>
>> I was reading deocumentation of number of network filesystems and
>> GlusterFS seemed the best choice.
>>
>> Igor Serebryany wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 11:56:28PM +1000, Joseph Glanville wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would really recommend against using Gluster or any filesystem based
>>>> method of providing VM storage
>>>
>>> Ditto. I would specifically recommend against Gluster. We tried it at my
>>> company for VM storage, and it's just not suitable for large files like
>>> VM images, especially if you are hoping to use the advanced features
>>> like replication.
>>>
>>> --Igor
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-users mailing list
>>>
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>> --
>> Martins Lazdans
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>>
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
>
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>