Re: [Xen-users] Xen storage, Server with iSCSI or dedicated SAN?

[Ivan Porro <pivan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

thank you all. This could solve also the export/import iSCSI on same 
host issue, and avoid me mixed environments (on the host exporting iSCSI).
Were can I found a comparison between AoE / FC / iSCSI without starting 
a flame on AoE vs. iSCSI? ... well a comparison more recent than past 
discussion available on xen-users list, e.g., at:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2007-07/msg00121.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-06/msg00285.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-05/msg00670.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-05/msg00323.html

or external, like:

http://storagearchitect.blogspot.com/2007/04/aoefcoeiscsi.html

It would be a good idea to have a FAQ, a sort of "product matrix" where 
XEN products are associated with different storage technologies, or, I 
see it would be easier, a collection of "Use cases" where one can 
compare its own scenario with other's scenarios.
Well, it could be misleading for a detailed scenario, but useful to take 
first directions, to find a place where XEN guys officially say 
something like "if you have from 1 to N VMs you need X core, Y gigs RAM 
and at least this kind of storage....where if you have more than N you 
should go for..." or, maybe "...the required disk bandwidth for Z XEN 
VMs working at, let say, 50% of load (consider the most common, LAMP 
servers) on a single host is.... "...
how can I tell without knowing in details XEN performances if a storage 
solution vs another one will be scalable enough?
hard to say....

thank you anyway!

        Ivan


Tom Mornini wrote:
> I'd suggesting looking into Coraid's AoE products.
>
> I'm nothing more than a very satisfied user of their products.
>
> But then that's what it's all about, right? :-)
>
> -- -- Tom Mornini, CTO
> -- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting
> -- Support, Scalability, Reliability
> -- (866) 518-YARD (9273) x201
>
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Ivan Porro wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to configuring a setup where I will have 1 DELL PE1950 with 
> > 2 QC Xeon 5335, 8GB ram and a HP DL380G3 with 2 Xeon 3GHz and 2GB ram 
> > and Xen OSS or XenExpress v4, hosting RHEL4 and Windows VMs.
> > The problem is on the storage side. Since I'm really low on budget, 
> > I've to skip fiber channel and go for one of this two reasonable iSCSI 
> > options:
> > 1)
> > SAN solution:  with a DELL/EMC2 AX150 iSCSI, single controller
> >
> > 2)
> > NAS solution:  another server, a PE2950 configured with 2 QC Xeon 
> > 5320, 8GB ram and Xeon OSS or XenExpress v4 again, acting as a iSCSI 
> > target for himself and the other server. It will host also a LTO2 
> > backup library, probably DELL PV124T
> >
> > What are the real performance benefits of the SAN in this case? The 
> > SAN was intended to be not entirely dedicated to XEN.  If I go for a 
> > server based SAN, it will (directly or via a VM) provide storage via 
> > NFS/SAMBA to other hosts
> > Well, of course, you may have also option (3) and (4)... that probably 
> > I missed... any help is appreciated
> > thank you in advance
> >
> >     ivan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --http://www.bio.dist.unige.it
> > voice: +39 010 353 2789
> > fax:   +39 010 353 2948
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

--
http://www.bio.dist.unige.it
voice: +39 010 353 2789
fax:   +39 010 353 2948

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users