up vote -1 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

Do you think that KVM (or XEN) virtual machine using GlusterFS as storage will be really slow. My idea is to use GlusterFS to avoid the limits of the local file system. If an hypervisor will go down, another one could take care of the 'orphans' VMs. Even the live migration should be straight forward.

link|improve this question
54% accept rate
What's the question here exactly? – mattdm Feb 8 '11 at 18:40
feedback

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote

If you want to build a "shared nothing" cluster for high availability, a master-slave DRBD setup with any filesystem on top of it should do the trick. If you want some kind of load balancing, you should evaluate GlusterFS, but it will definitely a bit slower on both nodes than a non-clustered FS due to certain clustering-reated overhead. I have never tried GlusterFS, but I tried OCFS2. I found it not stable enough in virtualized environments, although it worked well on a real hardware.

link|improve this answer
+1 for proven technology and simplicity before reaching for additional solutions. Depending on other factors, trying newer things is often a good recommendation but I've not followed GlusterFS and Ceph in terms of significant production deployments. Also, researchers can feel social pressure to live on the hemorrhaging edge. – Barry Nov 5 '11 at 12:40
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.