On 01/03/2013 07:04 PM, Edison Su wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:31 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com>
wrote:
Hello All,
I wish to propose Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
CloudStack - I have added some details here
(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Shared+NFS+Zo
n
e-wide+(primary)+Block+Storage) along with a JIRA ticket 724
Please review and comment
Hari Kannan
So I have to say that I don't really understand the reason for wanting to
invest the effort in doing this, and fear it will just result in a bad
experience
for the majority of folks who embark upon it.
For a small setup this will work fine, but that small setup is also likely to
only
have a few clusters. I fear that in all but the most niche cases that this
simply
doesn't scale.
It's not about shared nfs zone-wide primary storage, it is about: can we
support zone-wide primary storage in cloudstack? Don't matter what kind of
primary storage people want to use, it can be nfs(if they want, for whatever
reason), or solidfire etc.
Currently, cloudstack just can't do that.
Ok, clear :-)
But still, what would then be the purpose of having multiple clusters
when they all share the same primary storage?
If that primary storage fails all your clusters go down with it.
Or am I thinking in the wrong way?
Isn't a cluster supposed to be an isolated "island" of machines which do
not have any ties with other clusters other then being in the same pod/zone?
Wido
Also - trying to emulate Amazon's EBS with something like NFS that is unlikely
to scale to EBS proportions seems an interesting choice. I could understand
using one of the distributed filesystems like Gluster or Ceph to do this, so
why NFS?
