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

    XenServer hyperconverged

    IT Discussion
    xenserver xenserver 7 xen orchestra hyperconvergence hyperconverged
    14
    111
    19.1k
    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.
    • FATeknollogeeF
      FATeknollogee
      last edited by

      @olivier Will there be a beta, when is the ETA?

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

        Probably a beta one day, but it's really to soon to have an ETA. I'm only on preliminary tests stage, so it seems to work, I have to:

        • find the right settings
        • make various tests in 2 hosts scenario
        • reproduce the recipe when it seems OK after tests

        Then, the automatisation phase would be a bit tricky, in order to "package" a turnkey thing.

        My biggest interrogation now more about speed than resiliency (which seems OK).

        But sure, as soon I got a minimal viable product, I'll open a beta.

        FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • FATeknollogeeF
          FATeknollogee @olivier
          last edited by

          @olivier
          Do you plan to support more than a 2 node setup?

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

            That's very likely, but one step at a time 😉

            FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • FATeknollogeeF
              FATeknollogee @olivier
              last edited by

              @olivier Totally understand, but, you can't blame a guy for getting excited 🤤

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

                Haha sure 😉

                Hope the test would be conclusive. I have no guarantee, I'm exploring.

                Imagine if only I had a bigger team 😄

                Let's keep up posted!

                BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • BRRABillB
                  BRRABill @olivier
                  last edited by

                  @olivier said

                  Imagine if only I had a bigger team 😄

                  Well at least you have some willing testers here at ML. 🙂

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    I'm very interested to learn more about how the storage will be approached.

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

                      @scottalanmiller I have multiple angles of attack, I'm currently benching and establishing pros/cons for each approach.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • FATeknollogeeF
                        FATeknollogee
                        last edited by

                        @olivier
                        I think you should move this "hyperconverged" feature up on the release schedule 😲

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

                          I have file level restore on top right now 😉

                          FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • FATeknollogeeF
                            FATeknollogee @olivier
                            last edited by

                            @olivier said in XenServer hyperconverged:

                            I have file level restore on top right now 😉

                            I realize that.
                            File restore won't be unhappy at occupying the #2 spot, will it? jk

                            olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • olivierO
                              olivier @FATeknollogee
                              last edited by

                              @FATeknollogee It doesn't work like that.

                              Playing/exploring a technology is one thing, releasing a minimal viable product is another one. Maybe my exploration will finish by a "it will be better to wait for SmapiV3 in XenServer" verdict.

                              I set some goals, I'll try to reach them but I can guarantee anything. About the file level restore, our lead dev work on it, not me. So I try to have my "tech time" on this (which is a bit hard considering I'm doing a lot of not technical work)

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • FATeknollogeeF
                                FATeknollogee
                                last edited by

                                Thanks for the detailed explanation.

                                Just curious, but what is "SmapiV3 in XenServer"?

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

                                  At least a modular storage "API" for XenServer: http://xapi-project.github.io/xapi/futures/smapiv3/smapiv3.html

                                  It will allow to plug any filesystem/share into XenServer via "simple" plugins.

                                  For me, that's the best "neat" solution coming, but it's not yet ready.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • FATeknollogeeF
                                    FATeknollogee
                                    last edited by

                                    Thx for the explanation & link.

                                    Keep up the great work, you have a fantastic product (I know I'm not the 1st one to tell you that)

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

                                      Hey there,

                                      If anyone can make some quick benchmark if you have any Windows based VM: using Crystal Disk Mark (latest, 5.2 I think) with the default parameters (5/1GiB)

                                      Done tests on Windows Server 2016 (TP5, yeah I know I'm late) and I would like to compare how much I can lose in a hyperconverged scenario.

                                      Also, telling the SR type and the physical device underneath would be great 🙂 Thanks!

                                      edit: no worries, I'm not here to compare apples to apples, just want a quick order of magnitude.

                                      DanpD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • DanpD
                                        Danp @olivier
                                        last edited by

                                        @olivier Here are my results (Windows Server 2008, LVM, Raid 10, 8x 15K spinning rust) --

                                        Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 416.270 MB/s
                                        Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 412.617 MB/s
                                        Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 14.298 MB/s [ 3490.7 IOPS]
                                        Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 17.564 MB/s [ 4288.1 IOPS]
                                        Sequential Read (T= 1) : 321.305 MB/s
                                        Sequential Write (T= 1) : 273.068 MB/s
                                        Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 1.218 MB/s [ 297.4 IOPS]
                                        Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 12.264 MB/s [ 2994.1 IOPS]

                                        Test : 1024 MiB [C: 75.9% (56.9/75.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]

                                        olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • olivierO
                                          olivier @Danp
                                          last edited by

                                          @Danp Your storage is on your host right?

                                          DanpD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • DanpD
                                            Danp @olivier
                                            last edited by

                                            @olivier Yes, local storage.

                                            olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 6
                                            • 2 / 6
                                            • First post
                                              Last post