ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data

    IT Discussion
    xenorchestra xo storage
    7
    65
    7.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      scottalanmiller @olivier
      last edited by

      @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

      Yes, whatever how you name it, but a physical appliance/machine which will serve a large bunch of files.

      But why not virtualize that one machine to get the benefits of virtualization? What's the advantage to giving up the extra benefits?

      O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        scottalanmiller @olivier
        last edited by

        @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

        @scottalanmiller I don't agree and that's not my point either. If a filer is overcrowded, that's not a virt vs physical issue, that's a capacity planning issue.

        Here, I'm talking about general architecture, not implementation details.

        It's physics. NAS and SAN are just local storage themselves. They have no magic. Anything they can do to aid failover, local storage can do without the extra overhead.

        O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • O
          olivier @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller What's the point of a virtual filer if you can't easily move it. Very large VDIs defeats the flexibility of virtualization.

          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • O
            olivier @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere, I don't get your point. I'm not talking about performances limits at all.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              scottalanmiller @olivier
              last edited by

              @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

              @scottalanmiller What's the point of a virtual filer if you can't easily move it. Very large VDIs defeats the flexibility of virtualization.

              Not at all, because those are "icing" benefits, not the cake benefits. Being able to move things isn't the core value in virtualization. And even if so, you are just saying why it isn't overwhelmingly better, but not saying why physical is better. If advocating physical, what is the actual benefit?

              http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/virtualization-as-a-standard-pattern/

              http://www.smbitjournal.com/2015/04/virtualizing-even-a-single-server/

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • O
                olivier
                last edited by

                Okay, let's imagine your NAS is on a larger VMs talking all space of your local storage of your XenServer/ESXi/whatever host. And exposing mounts to all other VMs on other hosts. That's doable but that's not my point. For me, this setup is almost the same of having a physical NAS/SAN.

                My point is: for ALL your VMs, it's better to have smaller VDIs everywhere and mount a filer elsewhere if needed.

                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  By the logic that big VDIs defeat the purpose of virtualization because they cannot be moved, that also would undermine the accepted best practice of virtualizing when you have only a single physical server, but as we know you would always do that and the benefits are myriad even without that one benefit.

                  Things like driver stability, standard environments, snapshotting from outside of the OS, greater flexibility to combat the unknown, etc. are big deals.

                  And remember, you are only saying that you can't move the VDI as easily, but by going to physical it because "can't move it at all." Doing something in a difficult way is still easier than not being able to do something at all. So virtual still benefits from it, just not as much.

                  O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • S
                    scottalanmiller @olivier
                    last edited by

                    @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                    Okay, let's imagine your NAS is on a larger VMs talking all space of your local storage of your XenServer/ESXi/whatever host. And exposing mounts to all other VMs on other hosts. That's doable but that's not my point. For me, this setup is almost the same of having a physical NAS/SAN.

                    Sure, ALMOST the same, but still a little better. That's the point. The VM approach still has benefits, the NAS is still a little worse. Why opt for worse when better is free?

                    O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • O
                      olivier @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller That's not my point. A big virtualized NAS is doable if you like. I was talking about the architecture. Damn, I have the impression to speak Chinese. Sorry if I can't express clearly my ideas in English.

                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        scottalanmiller @olivier
                        last edited by

                        @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                        @scottalanmiller I was talking about the architecture.

                        Do you mean that if you have massive file serving needs that it makes the most sense to have that on unique hardware that is then shared to other VMs? That makes sense, but seems like a standard capacity algorithm solution rather than a special case. Any workload that becomes dramatically unbalanced from the others would operate in that way.

                        O 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • O
                          olivier @scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          @scottalanmiller Because that's not my point aaarrrgghh. I don't care, that's a not something I wanted to focus in my opinion at the first place.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            I think that we are all lost at this point. Maybe start over and word it fresh. What @Dashrender had in the original post was not at all what you had said.

                            I thought that you meant physical file server was better than a virtual one, but that wasnt it either.

                            I don't know what was originally said that prompted the conversation so only working from what is in the thread.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • O
                              olivier @scottalanmiller
                              last edited by olivier

                              The thing, initially, was about having VMs with large VDIs. Which is for me not a good practice.

                              But if you need to store a large amount of data, it's better to connect to a remote file share in the VM and keep small system disks (excepts for db/web usage, which are not huge in general).

                              That's all.

                              edit: is it more clear now?

                              S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • S
                                scottalanmiller @olivier
                                last edited by

                                @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                The thing, initially, was about having VMs with large VDIs. Which is for me not a good practice.

                                But if you need to store a large amount of data, it's better to connect to a remote file share in the VM and keep small system disks (excepts for db/web usage, which are not huge in general).

                                That's all.

                                edit: is it more clear now?

                                Let's see if I reword it correctly....

                                If your VM needs a lot of file storage.... then it is better to mount that from a file server rather than keeping it in the original VM?

                                O FATeknollogeeF 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • O
                                  olivier @scottalanmiller
                                  last edited by

                                  @scottalanmiller said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                  @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                  The thing, initially, was about having VMs with large VDIs. Which is for me not a good practice.

                                  But if you need to store a large amount of data, it's better to connect to a remote file share in the VM and keep small system disks (excepts for db/web usage, which are not huge in general).

                                  That's all.

                                  edit: is it more clear now?

                                  Let's see if I reword it correctly....

                                  If your VM needs a lot of file storage.... then it is better to mount that from a file server rather than keeping it in the original VM?

                                  Yup, that's it. Because a lot of file storage will mean a large VDI, which is "dangerous".

                                  S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • S
                                    scottalanmiller @olivier
                                    last edited by

                                    @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                    @scottalanmiller said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                    @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                    The thing, initially, was about having VMs with large VDIs. Which is for me not a good practice.

                                    But if you need to store a large amount of data, it's better to connect to a remote file share in the VM and keep small system disks (excepts for db/web usage, which are not huge in general).

                                    That's all.

                                    edit: is it more clear now?

                                    Let's see if I reword it correctly....

                                    If your VM needs a lot of file storage.... then it is better to mount that from a file server rather than keeping it in the original VM?

                                    Yup, that's it. Because a lot of file storage will mean a large VDI, which is "dangerous".

                                    Okay, that part makes sense 🙂

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • O
                                      olivier
                                      last edited by

                                      \o/

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • S
                                        scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        I'm blaming @Dashrender for that one.

                                        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • O
                                          olivier
                                          last edited by

                                          I'm blaming myself for doing multiple things at once. Got a trip early tomorrow, so I'm going to bed 😄 See ya!

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • S
                                            scottalanmiller @olivier
                                            last edited by

                                            @olivier said in Someone doesn't like local storage for large amounts of data:

                                            I'm blaming myself for doing multiple things at once. Got a trip early tomorrow, so I'm going to bed 😄 See ya!

                                            Good night.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 4 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post