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

    XenServer hyperconverged

    IT Discussion
    xenserver xenserver 7 xen orchestra hyperconvergence hyperconverged
    14
    111
    19.5k
    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.
    • hobbit666H
      hobbit666
      last edited by

      Will be keeping an eye on this 😄 will be keen to have a play (when I get two servers spare lol)

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