It is an interesting idea. If the constraints you face at your company can
be corrected somewhat by implementing this, then you should go for it.
It sounds like writes will be placed on the slower storage pool. This means
as you update OS components, those updates will be placed on the slower
storage pool. As such, your performance is likely to somewhat decrease over
time (as more and more writes end up on the slower storage pool).
That may be OK for your use case(s), though.
You'll have to update the storage-pool orchestration logic to take this new
scheme into account.
Also, we'll have to figure out how this ties into storage tagging (if at
all).
I'd be happy to review your design and code.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Hieu LE <hieul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Mike and Punith for quick reply.
>
> Both solutions you gave here are absolutely correct. But as I mentioned in
> the first email, I want another better solution for current infrastructure
> at my company.
>
> Creating a high IOPS primary storage using storage tags is good but it will
> be very waste of disk capacity. For example, if I only have 1TB SSD and
> deploy 100 VM from a 100GB template.
>
> So I think about a solution where a high IOPS primary storage can only
> store golden image (master image), and a child image of this VM will be
> stored in another normal (NFS, ISCSI...) storage. In this case, with 1TB
> SSD Primary Storage I can store as much golden image as I need.
>
> I have also tested it with 256 GB SSD mounted on Xen Server 6.2.0 with 2TB
> local storage 10000RPM, 6TB NFS share storage with 1GB network. The IOPS of
> VMs which have golden image (master image) in SSD and child image in NFS
> increate more than 30-40% compare with VMs which have both golden image and
> child image in NFS. The boot time of each VM is also decrease. ('cause
> golden image in SSD only reduced READ IOPS).
>
> Do you think this approach OK ?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Punith - this is similar to what I was going to say.
> >
> > Any time a set of CloudStack volumes share IOPS from a common pool, you
> > cannot guarantee IOPS to a given CloudStack volume at a given time.
> >
> > Your choices at present are:
> >
> > 1) Use managed storage (where you can create a 1:1 mapping between a
> > CloudStack volume and a volume on a storage system that has QoS). As
> Punith
> > mentioned, this requires that you purchase storage from a vendor who
> > provides guaranteed QoS on a volume-by-volume bases AND has this
> integrated
> > into CloudStack.
> >
> > 2) Create primary storage in CloudStack that is not managed, but has a
> high
> > number of IOPS (ex. using SSDs). You can then storage tag this primary
> > storage and create Compute and Disk Offerings that use this storage tag
> to
> > make sure their volumes end up on this storage pool (primary storage).
> This
> > will still not guarantee IOPS on a CloudStack volume-by-volume basis, but
> > it will at least place the CloudStack volumes that need a better chance
> of
> > getting higher IOPS on a storage pool that could provide the necessary
> > IOPS. A big downside here is that you want to watch how many CloudStack
> > volumes get deployed on this primary storage because you'll need to
> > essentially over-provision IOPS in this primary storage to increase the
> > probability that each and every CloudStack volume that uses this primary
> > storage gets the necessary IOPS (and isn't as likely to suffer from the
> > Noisy Neighbor Effect). You should be able to tell CloudStack to only
> use,
> > say, 80% (or whatever) of the storage you're providing to it (so as to
> > increase your effective IOPS per GB ratio). This over-provisioning of
> IOPS
> > to control Noisy Neighbors is avoided in option 1. In that situation, you
> > only provision the IOPS and capacity you actually need. It is a much more
> > sophisticated approach.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Punith S <punit...@cloudbyte.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > hi hieu,
> > >
> > > your problem is the bottle neck we see as a storage vendors in the
> cloud,
> > > meaning all the vms in the cloud have not been guaranteed iops from the
> > > primary storage, because in your case i'm assuming you are running
> > 1000vms
> > > on a xen cluster whose all vm's disks are lying on a same primary nfs
> > > storage mounted to the cluster,
> > > hence you won't get the dedicated iops for each vm since every vm is
> > > sharing the same storage. to solve this issue in cloudstack we the
> third
> > > party vendors have implemented the plugin(namely cloudbyte , solidfire
> > etc)
> > > to support managed storage(dedicated volumes with guaranteed qos for
> each
> > > vms) , where we are mapping each root disk(vdi) or data disk of a vm
> with
> > > one nfs or iscsi share coming out of a pool, also we are proposing the
> > new
> > > feature to change volume iops on fly in 4.5, where you can increase or
> > > decrease your root disk iops while booting or at peak times. but to use
> > > this plugin you have to buy our storage solution.
> > >
> > > if not , you can try creating a nfs share out of ssd pool storage and
> > > create a primary storage in cloudstack out of it named as golden
> primary
> > > storage with specific tag like gold, and create a compute offering for
> > your
> > > template with the storage tag as gold, hence all the vm's you create
> will
> > > sit on this gold primary storage with high iops. and other data disks
> on
> > > other primary storage but still here you cannot guarantee the qos at vm
> > > level.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Hieu LE <hieul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> There are some problems while deploying a large amount of VMs in my
> > >> company
> > >> with CloudStack. All VMs are deployed from same template (e.g: Windows
> > 7)
> > >> and the quantity is approximately ~1000VMs. The problems here is low
> > IOPS,
> > >> low performance of VM (about ~10-11 IOPS, boot time is very high). The
> > >> storage of my company is SAN/NAS with NFS and Xen Server 6.2.0. All
> Xen
> > >> Server nodes have standard server HDD disk raid.
> > >>
> > >> I have found some solutions for this such as:
> > >>
> > >> - Enable Xen Server Intellicache and some tweaks in CloudStack
> codes
> > to
> > >> deploy and start VM in Intellicache mode. But this solution will
> > >> transfer
> > >> all IOPS from shared storage to all local storage, hence affect and
> > >> limit
> > >> some CloudStack features.
> > >> - Buying some expensive storage solutions and network to increase
> > IOPS.
> > >> Nah..
> > >>
> > >> So, I am thinking about a new feature that (may be) increasing IOPS
> and
> > >> performance of VMs:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Separate golden image in high IOPS partition: buying new SSD,
> plug
> > >> in
> > >> Xen Server and deployed a new VM in NFS storage WITH golden image
> in
> > >> this
> > >> new SSD partition. This can reduce READ IOPS in shared storage and
> > >> decrease
> > >> boot time of VM. (Currenty, VM deployed in Xen Server always have a
> > >> master
> > >> image (golden image - in VMWare) always in the same storage
> > repository
> > >> with
> > >> different image (child image)). We can do this trick by tweaking in
> > VHD
> > >> header file with new Xen Server plug-in.
> > >> 2. Create golden primary storage and VM template that enable this
> > >> feature.
> > >> 3. So, all VMs deployed from template that had enabled this feature
> > >> will
> > >> have a golden image stored in golden primary storage (SSD or some
> > high
> > >> IOPS
> > >> partition), and different image (child image) stored in other
> normal
> > >> primary storage.
> > >>
> > >> This new feature will not transfer all IOPS from shared storage to
> local
> > >> storage (because high IOPS partition can be another high IOPS shared
> > >> storage) and require less money than buying new storage solution.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think ? If possible, may I write a proposal in CloudStack
> > >> wiki ?
> > >>
> > >> BRs.
> > >>
> > >> Hieu Lee
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> > >> Version: 3.1
> > >> GCS/CM/IT/M/MU d-@? s+(++):+(++) !a C++++(++++)$ ULC++++(++)$ P
> > >> L++(+++)$ E
> > >> !W N* o+ K w O- M V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t 5 X R tv+ b+(++)>+++ DI- D+ G
> > >> e++(+++) h-- r(++)>+++ y-
> > >> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > punith s
> > > cloudbyte.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCS/CM/IT/M/MU d-@? s+(++):+(++) !a C++++(++++)$ ULC++++(++)$ P L++(+++)$
> E
> !W N* o+ K w O- M V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t 5 X R tv+ b+(++)>+++ DI- D+ G
> e++(+++) h-- r(++)>+++ y-
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
