1 |
Am 12.06.2013 16:20, schrieb Nick Khamis: |
2 |
> Hello Nick, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you |
5 |
> need a fibre channel SAN. |
6 |
> Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is |
7 |
> delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance. |
8 |
> An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is |
9 |
> dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS |
10 |
> comes back up without any fuzz. |
11 |
> Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something |
12 |
> like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing |
13 |
> happened. |
14 |
> We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable. |
15 |
> Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to |
16 |
> increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your |
17 |
> share on the go. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel |
20 |
> SAN, don't! |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Regards, |
23 |
> Norman |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Hello Norman, |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Thank you so much for your response. That is a very interesting! We |
29 |
> currently use an NFS to house home directories etc.., and I love how it |
30 |
> just bloody works!!! We do however need block level sharing. The idea is |
31 |
> the |
32 |
> typical host with multiple VM with virtual HDDs residing on a SAN..... |
33 |
> We figured |
34 |
> fibre would give us better performance (for the mean time!!!). |
35 |
> |
36 |
> It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI |
37 |
> or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type |
38 |
> of faults that lead to whatever failures? The only difference being of |
39 |
> course, on is on fibre, and the other using ethernet. Given the price |
40 |
> of fibre right now, it's quite cheap and we though double the throughput, |
41 |
> why not? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> We could have the VMs taking storage from DAS, and mount to an |
44 |
> external NFS for home/ etc... Not sure how it would perform in terms of |
45 |
> IO rates, and also, the idea of block level allocation just seems so much |
46 |
> cleaner no? |
47 |
> |
48 |
> PS I am new to SAN, please excuse me. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Kind Regards, |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Nick |
53 |
|
54 |
Hello, |
55 |
|
56 |
our setup is that we open up pools of up to 20 hosts which all mount the |
57 |
same NFS share which holds sparse file images as virtual hdds of the |
58 |
VMs. So life migration is possible, other than holding the VMs on local |
59 |
storage. |
60 |
Our never clusters are equipped with hosts using 10 gigabit ethernet. |
61 |
Two 10GE ports are bonded to provide redundancy and balancing. Every |
62 |
host features 2 bonds, one for storage vlans and one for the production |
63 |
vlans. Performance is not the issue. |
64 |
Our older clusters do this with 1 gigabit ethernet and three bonds. |
65 |
We have some high performance services and throughput never was a problem. |
66 |
So i recomment NFS. But it really depends on your prefferation. |
67 |
|
68 |
Regards, |
69 |
Norman |