Open Stack

Hi Maciej,
Tell me if i'm wrong but with block device you have two solutions :1 - Use it with cinder and have to specify Boot From volume when creating a VM2 - Use it directly with meta data storage, but need to create 1 volume for each node
In any case you loose the ability to live migrate instance.
Right ?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:02:47 +0100
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Storage decision
From: macias at shellycloud.com
To: bada.boum at outlook.com
CC: razique.mahroua at gmail.com; openstack at lists.openstack.org

On 4 November 2013 10:46, Julien De Freitas <bada.boum at outlook.com> wrote:




Hi Razique,
Thanks for the link !I read the full discussion and as I tought there is no real perfect solution so far.I think i'll continue to use nexenta because it's a great solution and i'll set up multi back end storage for cinder in order to test ceph block storage.
For meta data storage i'll do some test with CephFS because not production ready mean a lot and nothing at the same time. I your previsous mail you said  "the FS kept hanging on high load, so I considered it to be pretty unstable for OpenStack", but if it was  kept hanging on high load it should be pretty stable ? what was the load ? Can you share more detail with us ?
That's a pity that we could not find any neutral heavy test out there.
If you consider Ceph you should take a look at Ceph RBD not CephFS (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd/). It is stable and works great for me.

-- 
Maciej Gałkiewicz
Shelly Cloud Sp. z o. o., Sysadmin
http://shellycloud.com/, macias at shellycloud.com

KRS: 0000440358 REGON: 101504426
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20131104/3b298c9a/attachment.html>