Are you talking about ZFS in general or ZoL? The problems I've seen
with ZoL is the performance inconsistencies (review github for details),
redundant caching, and of course user quotas (workaround is zvols but
zvols seem to have their own issues in current ZoL releases). As for
redundant caching, data seems to be cached by the linux page cache and
ARC leaving less available for both. I have yet to talk to someone who
is using ZoL in production for OpenVZ.
Pavel Snajdr <mailto:li...@snajpa.net>
Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:21 AM
Oh, again, this debate always goes on and on :)
Guys, try ZFS yourselves and come back here :)
You obviously haven't seen ARC caching in action. You haven't played
with snapshots. You haven't seen what the online compression can do.
Etc., etc., etc.
There's lots to ZFS, which neither BTRFS will ever even remotely approach.
Try having this config:
- 300+ containers on a single node
- 128G RAM
- 6 spindles, 2 SSDs
- run MySQL on at least 50 of the containers
Not only it is way too faster than anything you could do with ext4 even
if it's split via ploop into smaller filesystems, it is also much, much
easier to manage. ZFS has a tree structure of filesystems with property
inheritance.
It's designed to be The Solution for situations exactly like this one.
The only shortcoming I can really see and mention from my experience of
running an OpenVZ based hosting with 850 active CTs on top of ZFS, is
that it lacks the support for dquota.
I've looked into integrating dquota with ZFS, but it's such an utter
mess of an invention, that I have quickly changed my mind and instead
we're just doing more datasets (== subvolumes in BTRFS). They are really
inexpensive (16kB each), can have own size limits (quotas in ZFS lingo)
and thanks to the tree structure with inheritance it's easy to manage
them.
Also, forget about rsync and all that crap. Send/receive kills it with
ease.
/snajpa
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Scott Dowdle <mailto:dow...@montanalinux.org>
Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:48 PM
Greetings,
----- Original Message -----
Performance issues aren't the only problem ploop solves... it also
solves the changing inode issue. When a container is migrated from one
host to another with simfs, inodes will change... and some services
don't like that. Also because the size of a ploop disk image is fixed
(although changeable), the fixed size acts as a quota... so you get
your quota back if you turned it off.
For me, unless something changes, ZFS isn't a starter because almost
no one ships with it because of licensing issues.
How about btrfs? I don't think btrfs is available easily in the
existing OpenVZ kernels... nor in a modular format (like ZFS) so we
might have to wait until the availability of a RHEL7-based OpenVZ
branch. Red Hat still considers btrfs experimental but that may change
with upcoming RHEL7 updates. Both SUSE and Oracle have been using
btrfs for some time although they do not support btrfs' entire feature
set... they stick with the basic features and avoid the less mature
ones. Luckily that includes mirror, checksums, snapshoting,
subvolumes, etc.
I wouldn't put simfs and ploop in the same column as the underlying
filesystems.
I'm not sure why the chart says that simfs has issues with migration.
Other than the inode issue, which isn't an issue with the services I
run, simfs actually migrates faster because it doesn't have to
transfer the entire disk image... and if the host has been migrated
before and has a previous copy of its filesystem available, only the
changed files have to be transferred... saving a lot of time.
TYL,
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
