[PLUG] KVM

Daniel Herrington dherrington at robertmarktech.com
Tue Jul 20 19:31:47 UTC 2010


  I'll be running enterprise schedulers, web application front end, and 
various databases at the backend (Oracle, Sybase, MSSQL). Other than the 
db, the rest of the applications shouldn't be too heavy on disk I/O.

If you haven't seen any performance issues with file based, I think I'll 
go that route. Management of the files just seems easier.

thanks,
Dan H.


On 07/20/2010 11:44 AM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Daniel Herrington wrote:
>
>> I'm trying KVM out as a replacement for Vmware ESX. I have installed 
>> Ubuntu 10.04 x86_64 on an HP DL360. Setting up a CentOs 5.4 image, 
>> the install took 10 hours. I'm guessing the problem lies in the way 
>> I've get storage pools and volumes setup?
>>
>> I originally tried to do a storage pool on a physical disk device, 
>> but had trouble creating a volume on it after. Finally decided to 
>> abandon that in favor of pre-formatted block device storage pool. Has 
>> anyone used pre-formatted block devices with KVM before?
>>
>> My reasoning for physical disk, and then the block device storage 
>> pools was I assumed it would be faster than simply a file system 
>> directory. I'm curious if anybody on this list has experience with 
>> the best setup for storage pools? What criteria did you use to 
>> determine which type to go with?
>
> I'm interested to know what applications you plan to run in the VM 
> that make disk I/O performance so important.
>
> My initial Xen installations several years ago were all to KVM 
> partitions, but recently I've settled on file-based disk representations:
>
>  * they're easy to rsync to other hosts and/or backup
>  * i haven't noticed any significant performance difference
>

-- 
Daniel B. Herrington
Director of Field Services
Robert Mark Technologies
dherrington at robertmarktechnologies.com
o: 651-769-2574
m: 503-358-8575



More information about the PLUG mailing list