Brian Kolaci wrote:
They understand the technology very well. Yes, ZFS is very flexible
with many features, and most are not needed in an enterprise
environment where they have high-end SAN storage that is shared
between Sun, IBM, linux, VMWare ESX and Windows. Local disk is only
for the OS image. There is no need to have an M9000 be a file
server. They have NAS for that. They use SAN across the enterprise
and it gives them the ability to fail-over to servers in other data
centers very quickly.
Different business groups cannot share the same pool for many
reasons. Each business group pays for their own storage. There are
legal issues as well, and in fact cannot have different divisions on
the same frame let alone shared storage. But they're in a major
virtualization push to the point that nobody will be allowed to be on
their own physical box. So the big push is to move to VMware, and
we're trying to salvage as much as we can to move them to containers
and LDoms. That being the case, I've recommended that each virtual
machine on either a container or LDom should be allocated their own
zpool, and the zonepath or LDom disk image be on their own zpool.
This way when (not if) they need to migrate to another system, they
have one pool to move over. They use fixed sized LUNs, so the
granularity is a 33GB LUN, which can be migrated. This is also the
case for their clusters as well as SRDF to their COB machines.
If they accept virtualisation, why can't they use individual filesystems
(or zvol) rather than pools? What advantage do individual pools have
over filesystems? I'd have thought the main disadvantage of pools is
storage flexibility requires pool shrink, something ZFS provides at the
filesystem (or zvol) level.
--
Ian.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
