XenServer NFS Storage Repo in the SMB
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
If you have limited space and your SR is remote, how does that improve things?
The question isn't if you have limited space with remote SR.
But if you are designing a system and design it with the same amount of storage, you would have the same design decision in either location. If the question is about "what if someone doesn't plan for enough storage" then the answer is "plan for more".
Isn't this a quote from you?
Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them
Sure, but don't do it remotely. Implement it in the right place.
-
So then the nagging follow up question is; How do you calculate enough storage space for your Delta backups on your local storage array?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So then the nagging follow up question is; How do you calculate enough storage space for your Delta backups on your local storage array?
A quick answer I guess would be enough to hold two of the VHDs for each VM. But that doesn't take into account whether they are thin provisioned or anything else.
However, only enough for 2 would exclude the ability for additional manual snapshots if you want to take some (assuming you're going to use all of that).
-
@johnhooks Well we know that XO with Local Storage is a thick provision delta, @olivier answered that himself.
-
@DustinB3403 Local Storage in LVM. Not file based.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@johnhooks Well we know that XO with Local Storage is a thick provision delta, @olivier answered that himself.
No, only under certain circumstances that break other best practices. Like with most of these kinds of things, it turns into one broken best practice leading to another leading to disaster.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@johnhooks Well we know that XO with Local Storage is a thick provision delta, @olivier answered that himself.
mine by default are thin I believe. Im def not using all of what is provisioned there.
-
Our local was thin too.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
If you have limited space and your SR is remote, how does that improve things?
The question isn't if you have limited space with remote SR.
But if you are designing a system and design it with the same amount of storage, you would have the same design decision in either location. If the question is about "what if someone doesn't plan for enough storage" then the answer is "plan for more".
"Plan for more...."
Well that sure is a simple answer.
LOL - yeah that is kinda a non answer.
I take you the question to be, we planned for 8 TB with backups fitting in an additional 3 TB, 3 months later we found out that was to small. At the point I'd say you have a new project, which is a growth project, and you work it from that angle.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So then the nagging follow up question is; How do you calculate enough storage space for your Delta backups on your local storage array?
Look at your current backups, see what the deltas are.
If you don't have previous backups, or your previous backups are full disk backups, I think the VMWare tools have the ability to run and collect that kind of data - I can only guess there are other tools out there that can do the same.
-
@Dashrender said:
Well that sure is a simple answer.
LOL - yeah that is kinda a non answer.
Not really. What's the other option? If you don't have enough of something that you need, the answer is always "get more" and/or "find a way to need less." It's really the answer. The question is so simple that it makes the answer seem absurd. But when you look at what the question really is and remove the red herrings, that's all that was asked.
-
@Dashrender said:
I take you the question to be, we planned for 8 TB with backups fitting in an additional 3 TB, 3 months later we found out that was to small. At the point I'd say you have a new project, which is a growth project, and you work it from that angle.
And regardless of what that project is, it's goal will be to "add more storage."
-
@Dashrender said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
If you have limited space and your SR is remote, how does that improve things?
The question isn't if you have limited space with remote SR.
But if you are designing a system and design it with the same amount of storage, you would have the same design decision in either location. If the question is about "what if someone doesn't plan for enough storage" then the answer is "plan for more".
"Plan for more...."
Well that sure is a simple answer.
LOL - yeah that is kinda a non answer.
I take you the question to be, we planned for 8 TB with backups fitting in an additional 3 TB, 3 months later we found out that was to small. At the point I'd say you have a new project, which is a growth project, and you work it from that angle.
Actually no, 8TB today with room for 3TB of growth was the plan for a total of 11TB.
So instead of 11TB you'd want to have 20TB or more local.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Dashrender said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
If you have limited space and your SR is remote, how does that improve things?
The question isn't if you have limited space with remote SR.
But if you are designing a system and design it with the same amount of storage, you would have the same design decision in either location. If the question is about "what if someone doesn't plan for enough storage" then the answer is "plan for more".
"Plan for more...."
Well that sure is a simple answer.
LOL - yeah that is kinda a non answer.
I take you the question to be, we planned for 8 TB with backups fitting in an additional 3 TB, 3 months later we found out that was to small. At the point I'd say you have a new project, which is a growth project, and you work it from that angle.
Actually no, 8TB today with room for 3TB of growth was the plan for a total of 11TB.
So instead of 11TB you'd want to have 20TB or more local.
That seems like a lot. Why so much backup?
-
And more importantly, why so much "non-backup" as you are talking about local storage. You still need to move that elsewhere for it to be a backup.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Well that sure is a simple answer.
LOL - yeah that is kinda a non answer.
Not really. What's the other option? If you don't have enough of something that you need, the answer is always "get more" and/or "find a way to need less." It's really the answer. The question is so simple that it makes the answer seem absurd. But when you look at what the question really is and remove the red herrings, that's all that was asked.
@scottalanmiller said:
If the question is about "what if someone doesn't plan for enough storage" then the answer is "plan for more".
What red herring? If they made a plan, and the plan ended up being wrong, then all you can do is move onto the normal things, as you said, either grow the storage or find ways to use less storage.
I suppose Plan is the red herring in this case. If you plan to little storage, then of course, you should fix the plan and plan for more storage... but I'm sure that the realization that the plan was too small is often after the plan was implemented.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And more importantly, why so much "non-backup" as you are talking about local storage. You still need to move that elsewhere for it to be a backup.
This I think is the greater question.
If XO is using the SR to store it's backups, is it really a backup? I don't think so - I suppose it could be one of your three, but definitely needs to be on another platform (a different VM host/NAS/cloud/whatever).
-
Is XO looking to move the backup to a different storage target?
-
@Dashrender said:
Is XO looking to move the backup to a different storage target?
Well what happens is it takes an initial backup and sends it to the share. Then it takes a snapshot and compares the differences between the original and the snapshot, then it keeps doing that. So if your VM is completely full, you could have two VHDs that are the same size.
Keep in mind this is only with their delta backup. The normal backups don't do this. This is why I wanted to clarify with @olivier because you could potentially run into an issue without realizing it.
-
I'm slowly starting to come around to @scottalanmiller's idea of buying only what you need now, except in things like storage. There are some things you have to plan for growth. If you plan for too little growth then you have issues. By adding extra cost to your project now, you can prevent headaches in the (quite possibly near) future, that makes it worth it to the IT team in that we won't have to worry that we're out of space yet again. That cuts down on wasteful spending, and time lost restoring backups as you upgrade your storage.
