1 – Glusterfs V Ceph Im reading a lot of different opinions about which of these is the best storage backend. My need is for a fully stable product that has fault tolerance built in. It needs to support maybe 400 low traffic web sites and a few very high traffic. I saw a Redhat diag suggesting throughput on a Gbit nic with 2 storage servers (Glusterfs) would be around 200Mbps. I can put quad nics in the 2 or 3 storage machines to give extra breathing room. Gluster is of course a mature product and has Redhat pushing it forward but some people complain of speed issues. Any real life experiences of throughput using Ceph? I know Ceph is new but it seems there is considerable weight behind its development so while some say its not production ready I wonder if anyone has the experience to refute/concur?
2 – vm instances on clustered storage Im reading how if you run your vm instances on gluster/ceph you benefit from live migration and faster access times since disk access is usually to the local disk. I just need to clarify this – and this may fully expose my ignorance - but surely the instance runs on the compute node, not storage node so I don’t get how people are claiming its faster running vm instance on the storage cluster unless they are actually running compute on the storage cluster in which case you don’t have proper separation of compute/storage. Also, you would have the networking overhead unless running a compute node on storage cluster? What am I missing?! Thanks John
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
