Yep. Don't get me wrong -- I agree 100% with everything you've said
throughout this thread. Applications that have native replication are
awesome. Swift is crazy awesome. :)
I understand that some may see the use of mdadm, Cinder-assisted
replication, etc as supporting "pet" environments, and I ag
I thought this got stuck in the "do we need another list" and "well, what
is our alternative" discussion. So, no I don't recall any progress. I
still think it'd be useful to have a list. for this class of discussion.
Robert
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Jus
Besides, wouldn't it be better to actually do application layer backup
restore, or application level distribution for replication? That
architecture at least let's the application determine and deal with corrupt
data transmission rather than the DRBD like model where you corrupt one
data-set, you
I have not run into anyone replicating volumes or creating redundancy at
the VM level (beyond, as you point out, HDFS, etc.).
R
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
> This is a great conversation and I really appreciate everyone's input.
> Though, I agree, we wandered off the orig
This is a great conversation and I really appreciate everyone's input.
Though, I agree, we wandered off the original question and that's my fault
for mentioning various storage backends.
For the sake of conversation, let's just say the user has no knowledge of
the underlying storage technology. Th
I'm not against Ceph, but even 2 machines (and really 2 machines with
enough storage to be meaningful, e.g. not the all blade environments I've
built some o7k systems on) may not be available for storage, so there are
cases where that's not necessarily the solution. I built resiliency in one
envir
We've used ceph to address the storage requirement in small clouds pretty well.
it works pretty well with only two storage nodes with replication set to 2, and
because of the radosgw, you can share your small amount of storage between the
object store and the block store avoiding the need to ove
Ned's model is the model I meant by "multiple underlying storage
services". Most of the systems I've built are LV/LVM only, a few added
Ceph as an alternative/live-migration option, and one where we used Gluster
due to size. Note that the environments I have worked with in general are
small (~20
In our environments, we offer two types of storage. Tenants can either use
Ceph/RBD and trade speed/latency for reliability and protection against
physical disk failures, or they can launch instances that are realized as LVs
on an LVM VG that we create on top of a RAID 0 spanning all but the OS
Hello,
I using the latest Liberty and I am trying to bring up a VM with some numa
options configured using flavor. Specifically I need to give this VM 16GB of
RAM and in addition it will need to use 12x1GB huge pages. What I found out,
there is no way in a flavor to specify RAM size and separa
Hi Robert,
Can you elaborate on "multiple underlying storage services"?
The reason I asked the initial question is because historically we've made
our block storage service resilient to failure. Historically we also made
our compute environment resilient to failure, too, but over time, we've
seen
I've always recommended providing multiple underlying storage services to
provide this rather than adding the overhead to the VM. So, not in any of
my systems or any I've worked with.
R
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have users RAID'ing or stripin
Brilliant, thanks!
On 06/02/16 18:42, Mariano Cunietti wrote:
Hi Tom
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email
13 matches
Mail list logo
