Solved Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?
-
I've seen far more smaller partitions (2TB and under) shared out than I've seen massive (+2TB) shares configured and setup. .
The burden to provide examples isn't on me, but on you @scottalanmiller.
-
@scottalanmiller I work in about the smallest environment it's possible to still have IT, and only because 5 different companies are actually under the same ownership. Even I'm looking at that 2TB cap saying, that's just not enough!
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I've seen far more smaller partitions (2TB and under) shared out than I've seen massive (+2TB) shares configured and setup. .
The burden to provide examples isn't on me, but on you @scottalanmiller.
We have home directories that mount from multiple servers that have 52 TB a piece.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I've seen far more smaller partitions (2TB and under) shared out than I've seen massive (+2TB) shares configured and setup. .
The burden to provide examples isn't on me, but on you @scottalanmiller.
Not really, I asked for an industry standard, you are saying that it's not a real use case. Since just about every company of any size is looking at scores or hundreds of TB of storage (or PB even), saying that 2TB is a reasonable upper bounds needs some explaining. Why would this be? Other than very tiny companies or those with very tiny storage needs, when would so little storage capacity make sense?
Considering none of my storage units at home are this small, not even from six years ago or more, this makes no sense to me. From a size perspective, this is below the home line in many cases... just storing music, home movies and such often requires far more than this (I have about 12TB for home.)
-
The fact that Gluster, CEPH, Exablox, Scale and others are vendors dealing specifically with these kinds of limits, but at more like the 2PB, not 2TB, scale, I think we are way past needing to show why 2TB is a small limit.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I've seen far more smaller partitions (2TB and under) shared out than I've seen massive (+2TB) shares configured and setup. .
The burden to provide examples isn't on me, but on you @scottalanmiller.
Also, 2TB is not massive by any means. That's a ~$50 consumer drive. I'm thinking of how you argued with robinhood on SpiceWorks how multiple PB of data should be virtualized. How do you plan on doing that here?
-
So back full circle.
Any idea's how to circumvent this?
As we can have HUGE locaclized storage repository for XenServer, but the Guest (Windows server VM) will only allow 2TB due to Windows VHD limitations...
so for those of us running large file servers (myself). this 2TB is an issue; its too small!
So would have to pool the disks together?
or rely on some large external storage device with NFS/SMB shares? This just adds to the infrastructure costs and possible failure points.
@Scale computing nodes...... same limitations I presume?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
just storing music, home movies and such often requires far more than this (I have about 12TB for home.)
Ya, I have almost 2TB just in music.
-
I'm not saying that 2TB or 2PB shouldn't be virtual, I'm saying that the amount presented out shouldn't need to be larger than 2TB (per share) for a virtual machine for the very reasons of usability and restore options.
This is data administration, not system design. You have 2TB shares, if you need larger use another method. RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
I'm specifically saying present multiple 2TB shares out, unless you need more, in which case use an iSCSI target.
-
@ntoxicator said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
So back full circle.
Any idea's how to circumvent this?
As we can have HUGE locaclized storage repository for XenServer, but the Guest (Windows server VM) will only allow 2TB due to Windows VHD limitations...
so for those of us running large file servers (myself). this 2TB is an issue; its too small!
So would have to pool the disks together?
or rely on some large external storage device with NFS/SMB shares? This just adds to the infrastructure costs and possible failure points.
@Scale computing nodes...... same limitations I presume?
You could switch to Xen and use a real image file. Scale won't have this limitation. It's KVM, which I'm also running, and with qcow2 the limit is something like 7 exabytes.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I'm not saying that 2TB or 2PB shouldn't be virtual, I'm saying that the amount presented out shouldn't need to be larger than 2TB (per share) for a virtual machine for the very reasons of usability and restore options.
I don't understand this at all. Why would you have benefits to small chunks of a single filesystem? I've heard this before but never heard of a reason for it.
Presented out obviously has to be larger than 2TB, that's not an option. That the parts that make up the large share should be made up of tiny pieces is standardly considered a mistake of 2005 era SAN design. Why do you feel that this industry accepted mistake of a decade ago should be made standard again today?
-
in which case use an iSCSI target.
So you're saying to use Microsofts iSCSI initiator to connect a disk? I've been hit over the head before to suggesting that.
-
@johnhooks said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
You could switch to Xen and use a real image file. Scale won't have this limitation. It's KVM, which I'm also running, and with qcow2 the limit is something like 7 exabytes.
Oh I know, I can make a pretty epic file server on the Scale HC3
It's way ahead for that. This is not for a system that I manage that I was looking for the answer. Yes, "real" Xen without XS limitations does this without a problem. And Scale HC3 does it without thinking. Why XS is introducing this problem is beyond me. -
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I'm not saying that 2TB or 2PB shouldn't be virtual, I'm saying that the amount presented out shouldn't need to be larger than 2TB (per share) for a virtual machine for the very reasons of usability and restore options.
This is data administration, not system design. You have 2TB shares, if you need larger use another method. RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
He never said that. He said there are cases where you don't. And made good points, like with using Gluster/Ceph.
I'm specifically saying present multiple 2TB shares out, unless you need more, in which case use an iSCSI target.
And now you're limited to network throughput for your data.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
This is data administration, not system design. You have 2TB shares, if you need larger use another method. RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
What's the alternative method to file shares? And who is RobinHood? And why would we talk to someone that thinks that nothing should be virtualized?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
@johnhooks said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
You could switch to Xen and use a real image file. Scale won't have this limitation. It's KVM, which I'm also running, and with qcow2 the limit is something like 7 exabytes.
Oh I know, I can make a pretty epic file server on the Scale HC3
It's way ahead for that. This is not for a system that I manage that I was looking for the answer. Yes, "real" Xen without XS limitations does this without a problem. And Scale HC3 does it without thinking. Why XS is introducing this problem is beyond me.Ha ya I was just answering for @ntoxicator. I don't understand this ridiculous limit. VHDX has been out for like 4 years.
-
RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
Right now, my file server is "Virtualized" and "Virtualized Disk" coming from xenserver Storage Repository.
So with that being said, rather than having a virtualized file system; is to better having a networked SAN serving out SMB/NFS for data over network?
I'm just full circle and I apologize. #logic.
as if you do not have a need to Virtualize your file systems / shared. Then the Storage Repository needs would be significantly less; as would only need to Create Virtual Disks big enough for the server NEEDS. Then rely on network storage solutions for doing the SMB/NFS shares which attach to desktops / server?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
I'm specifically saying present multiple 2TB shares out, unless you need more, in which case use an iSCSI target.
That's just crappy. Why would we accept that much failure? That's not a good answer at all. Using LVM to fix the 2TB limit is bad enough, this is far worse.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
This is data administration, not system design. You have 2TB shares, if you need larger use another method. RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
What's the alternative method to file shares? And who is RobinHood? And why would we talk to someone that thinks that nothing should be virtualized?
He's someone who I consider a troll over there. Who insisted that you don't virtualize massive storage needs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
@DustinB3403 said in Get Large Disk Images on XenServer 6.5 on Local Filesystem?:
This is data administration, not system design. You have 2TB shares, if you need larger use another method. RobinHood specifically believes that you should never virtualize your file systems or work-loads.
What's the alternative method to file shares? And who is RobinHood? And why would we talk to someone that thinks that nothing should be virtualized?
He was on SW. He didn't say you shouldn't ever virtualize. He was dealing with multiple PB of data on Gluster. He was just making a point that you don't virtualize those types of systems, or large compute clusters like we have.
