Sunday, September 27, 2009

Re: [BLUG] storage options

I should also add that one downside of UFS as provided by FreeNAS is
that I'd have to give up LVM. Since I plan to run several servers that
would share this same storage it would be nice to put each of these disk
images in their own growable partitions, or at least have this available
as an option.


Joe Auty wrote:
> Lord Drachenblut wrote:
>> On Sunday 27 September 2009 3:37:10 am Joe Auty wrote:
>>> Hey Guys,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm looking for some perspectives on the storage options available
>>> today, and on the horizon...
>>>
>>>
>>> Specifically, I'm thinking about something that would be a little
>>> handier and more future proof for my servers I run. Specifically, I run
>>> VMWare Server on Linux and several virtual machines all on the same
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> There are several different variables and technologies at this point:
>>>
>>> - direct attach w. software or hardware RAID
>>>
>>> - file systems such as ZFS and BTRFS and the cool stuff you can do with
>>> them
>>>
>>> - NAS
>>>
>>> - external RAID arrays
>>>
>>> - iSCSI
>>>
>>> - getting higher quality disks such as SCSI and solid state drives
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a perfect world, here is what I'd like:
>>>
>>>
>>> - A storage device not tethered to my servers so that I can add more
>>> storage as needed without planning for downtime and running dd, and
>>> upgrade server hardware without having to reinvest in storage.
>>>
>>> - Fast I/O suitable for running VMs. There are tricks that can be
>>> employed which will help one get by with SATA, but you still have to be
>>> careful not to do heavy disk operations on the host as to render the
>>> guests unresponsive. This is a nuisance, and of course makes
>>> hypothetically backing up complete VM disk images difficult.
>>>
>>> - Disk redundancy, i.e. some sort of RAID configuration.
>>>
>>> - Some sort of solution somewhere between Cletus the Slackjaw Yokel's
>>> Windows XP box and high level enterprise stuff. I like the idea of
>>> spreading out the I/O demand across several cheap disks, adding more
>>> disk as needed, replacing failed disks as necessary. I don't need crazy
>>> fast I/O, I just need something a little more than a single SATA disk.
>>> So, enterprise level technology is not what I'm after here, just
>>> convenience and decent performance.
>>>
>>> - Something that will be relatively future proof and not cost me a
>>> fortune :)
>>>
>>> - I'm using nearly 250 gig right now so my capacity needs are not
>>> tremendous, but it would cost me a lot more than what I'm paying now to
>>> run within a VPS provider such as Linode or Slicehost, and I'd rather
>>> not get into the position where my costs grow significantly just to add
>>> a modest amount of disk space. My storage needs don't warrant an
>>> expensive SAN such as the ones that are no doubt in use by these
>>> providers, one of my VMs is running Windows, and I like the control I
>>> have now and I like working with my server provider. So, I'm not really
>>> keen on moving my eight servers to VMs provided by one of these
>>> companies
>>>
>>> - A way to backup all of this data (snapshots), preferably via the same
>>> overall design so that I have something I can test with and perhaps even
>>> fail over to in the event of an emergency. I know that offsite
>>> redundancy is the golden egg for many companies, but hey, this is a
>>> perfect world type wishlist! :) I use Amazon S3 for an offsite backup in
>>> addition to my current backup to backup my most important data, but to
>>> keep my costs to a minimum I'd prefer to just stay with rsync to
>>> multiple cheap disks.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm interested in learning more about iSCSI, and am fascinated with
>>> BTRFS and ZFS. Do any of you have any experience with any of this, have
>>> any general recommendations, thoughts, predictions, anything? I don't
>>> need to buy anything tomorrow, I'm just thinking that it would be nice
>>> to think ahead a little.
>>>
>>> It seems like I'm kind of stuck in between not needing to invest heavily
>>> in storage like a big company would, yet I'm pushing the limits of
>>> run-of-the-mill consumer grade direct attach SATA type stuff - the kind
>>> of solution that would be great for using with Time Machine to store
>>> pictures of your kids.
>>>
>>
>> You might try looking into using freenas. it can do alot of the things
>> you
>> are looking for and has support for zfs and iscsi at this point.
>>
>
> Thanks for the idea!
>
> I've looked at FreeNAS in the past, and it is an interesting option and
> seemingly useful to me since I use FreeBSD a lot, but what about the
> hardware end of things? What would host the disks that FreeNAS would
> manage and make available?
>
>
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BLUG mailing list
>> BLUG@linuxfan.com
>> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>
>


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] storage options

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Joe Auty <joe@netmusician.org> wrote:
> Lord Drachenblut wrote:
>> You might try looking into using freenas.  it can do alot of the things you
>> are looking for and has support for zfs and iscsi at this point.
>
> Thanks for the idea!
>
> I've looked at FreeNAS in the past, and it is an interesting option and
> seemingly useful to me since I use FreeBSD a lot, but what about the
> hardware end of things? What would host the disks that FreeNAS would
> manage and make available?

Well, that really depends on what your standards are/how much you're
willing to pay.

We serve several hundred people at a time, all of their workstation
files (Windows's Desktop, My Documents, ApplicationData and such
folders) accessed directly from one Samba file server. We're feeling a
pretty hard crunch—painful amounts of wait states, file operations
taking too long or failing—so we decided to upgrade.

I went to Dell and spec'ed out a brand new external RAID enclosure
that connects via some PCI-e RAID controller card, with 10 15k RPM SAS
drives in (the fastest drives available for the array) providing 2TB
of reasonably redundant (RAID 10 + a couple of hotswaps sitting on
standby) storage. I'm also hoping for a little bit of a boost during
read operations, theoretically, from the RAID config.

Oh, and we had to buy a brand new server so we could connect the
enclosure to something. I just picked the cheapest rack-mount Dell had
that would connect to that enclosure, and tweaked the config slightly.

Because we caught them at the end of their sales quota time period,
and because we bought two identical setups, we were able to get them
for about $3,500 a piece.

Then, when one of the two (redundant, hotswappable) power supplies was
DOA and I called to get a new one, they seriously insisted on knowing
what O/S I was planning on installing (Ubuntu Linux), "Oh, well, we
can never know what strange problems can happen with that; I really
must suggest you use Red Hat Linux." *ahem* "The 'my power supply is
dead' indicator light is flashing, and the RAID enclosure is not even
connected to the server, which has a blank hard disk. Are you
seriously suggesting this is a software compatibility issue?"

Tune in after we get things setup for how well it works as a solution
to our crunch...

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] storage options

Lord Drachenblut wrote:
> On Sunday 27 September 2009 3:37:10 am Joe Auty wrote:
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>>
>> I'm looking for some perspectives on the storage options available
>> today, and on the horizon...
>>
>>
>> Specifically, I'm thinking about something that would be a little
>> handier and more future proof for my servers I run. Specifically, I run
>> VMWare Server on Linux and several virtual machines all on the same
>> hardware.
>>
>> There are several different variables and technologies at this point:
>>
>> - direct attach w. software or hardware RAID
>>
>> - file systems such as ZFS and BTRFS and the cool stuff you can do with
>> them
>>
>> - NAS
>>
>> - external RAID arrays
>>
>> - iSCSI
>>
>> - getting higher quality disks such as SCSI and solid state drives
>>
>>
>>
>> In a perfect world, here is what I'd like:
>>
>>
>> - A storage device not tethered to my servers so that I can add more
>> storage as needed without planning for downtime and running dd, and
>> upgrade server hardware without having to reinvest in storage.
>>
>> - Fast I/O suitable for running VMs. There are tricks that can be
>> employed which will help one get by with SATA, but you still have to be
>> careful not to do heavy disk operations on the host as to render the
>> guests unresponsive. This is a nuisance, and of course makes
>> hypothetically backing up complete VM disk images difficult.
>>
>> - Disk redundancy, i.e. some sort of RAID configuration.
>>
>> - Some sort of solution somewhere between Cletus the Slackjaw Yokel's
>> Windows XP box and high level enterprise stuff. I like the idea of
>> spreading out the I/O demand across several cheap disks, adding more
>> disk as needed, replacing failed disks as necessary. I don't need crazy
>> fast I/O, I just need something a little more than a single SATA disk.
>> So, enterprise level technology is not what I'm after here, just
>> convenience and decent performance.
>>
>> - Something that will be relatively future proof and not cost me a
>> fortune :)
>>
>> - I'm using nearly 250 gig right now so my capacity needs are not
>> tremendous, but it would cost me a lot more than what I'm paying now to
>> run within a VPS provider such as Linode or Slicehost, and I'd rather
>> not get into the position where my costs grow significantly just to add
>> a modest amount of disk space. My storage needs don't warrant an
>> expensive SAN such as the ones that are no doubt in use by these
>> providers, one of my VMs is running Windows, and I like the control I
>> have now and I like working with my server provider. So, I'm not really
>> keen on moving my eight servers to VMs provided by one of these companies
>>
>> - A way to backup all of this data (snapshots), preferably via the same
>> overall design so that I have something I can test with and perhaps even
>> fail over to in the event of an emergency. I know that offsite
>> redundancy is the golden egg for many companies, but hey, this is a
>> perfect world type wishlist! :) I use Amazon S3 for an offsite backup in
>> addition to my current backup to backup my most important data, but to
>> keep my costs to a minimum I'd prefer to just stay with rsync to
>> multiple cheap disks.
>>
>>
>> I'm interested in learning more about iSCSI, and am fascinated with
>> BTRFS and ZFS. Do any of you have any experience with any of this, have
>> any general recommendations, thoughts, predictions, anything? I don't
>> need to buy anything tomorrow, I'm just thinking that it would be nice
>> to think ahead a little.
>>
>> It seems like I'm kind of stuck in between not needing to invest heavily
>> in storage like a big company would, yet I'm pushing the limits of
>> run-of-the-mill consumer grade direct attach SATA type stuff - the kind
>> of solution that would be great for using with Time Machine to store
>> pictures of your kids.
>>
>
> You might try looking into using freenas. it can do alot of the things you
> are looking for and has support for zfs and iscsi at this point.
>

Thanks for the idea!

I've looked at FreeNAS in the past, and it is an interesting option and
seemingly useful to me since I use FreeBSD a lot, but what about the
hardware end of things? What would host the disks that FreeNAS would
manage and make available?

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] storage options

On Sunday 27 September 2009 3:37:10 am Joe Auty wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
>
> I'm looking for some perspectives on the storage options available
> today, and on the horizon...
>
>
> Specifically, I'm thinking about something that would be a little
> handier and more future proof for my servers I run. Specifically, I run
> VMWare Server on Linux and several virtual machines all on the same
> hardware.
>
> There are several different variables and technologies at this point:
>
> - direct attach w. software or hardware RAID
>
> - file systems such as ZFS and BTRFS and the cool stuff you can do with
> them
>
> - NAS
>
> - external RAID arrays
>
> - iSCSI
>
> - getting higher quality disks such as SCSI and solid state drives
>
>
>
> In a perfect world, here is what I'd like:
>
>
> - A storage device not tethered to my servers so that I can add more
> storage as needed without planning for downtime and running dd, and
> upgrade server hardware without having to reinvest in storage.
>
> - Fast I/O suitable for running VMs. There are tricks that can be
> employed which will help one get by with SATA, but you still have to be
> careful not to do heavy disk operations on the host as to render the
> guests unresponsive. This is a nuisance, and of course makes
> hypothetically backing up complete VM disk images difficult.
>
> - Disk redundancy, i.e. some sort of RAID configuration.
>
> - Some sort of solution somewhere between Cletus the Slackjaw Yokel's
> Windows XP box and high level enterprise stuff. I like the idea of
> spreading out the I/O demand across several cheap disks, adding more
> disk as needed, replacing failed disks as necessary. I don't need crazy
> fast I/O, I just need something a little more than a single SATA disk.
> So, enterprise level technology is not what I'm after here, just
> convenience and decent performance.
>
> - Something that will be relatively future proof and not cost me a
> fortune :)
>
> - I'm using nearly 250 gig right now so my capacity needs are not
> tremendous, but it would cost me a lot more than what I'm paying now to
> run within a VPS provider such as Linode or Slicehost, and I'd rather
> not get into the position where my costs grow significantly just to add
> a modest amount of disk space. My storage needs don't warrant an
> expensive SAN such as the ones that are no doubt in use by these
> providers, one of my VMs is running Windows, and I like the control I
> have now and I like working with my server provider. So, I'm not really
> keen on moving my eight servers to VMs provided by one of these companies
>
> - A way to backup all of this data (snapshots), preferably via the same
> overall design so that I have something I can test with and perhaps even
> fail over to in the event of an emergency. I know that offsite
> redundancy is the golden egg for many companies, but hey, this is a
> perfect world type wishlist! :) I use Amazon S3 for an offsite backup in
> addition to my current backup to backup my most important data, but to
> keep my costs to a minimum I'd prefer to just stay with rsync to
> multiple cheap disks.
>
>
> I'm interested in learning more about iSCSI, and am fascinated with
> BTRFS and ZFS. Do any of you have any experience with any of this, have
> any general recommendations, thoughts, predictions, anything? I don't
> need to buy anything tomorrow, I'm just thinking that it would be nice
> to think ahead a little.
>
> It seems like I'm kind of stuck in between not needing to invest heavily
> in storage like a big company would, yet I'm pushing the limits of
> run-of-the-mill consumer grade direct attach SATA type stuff - the kind
> of solution that would be great for using with Time Machine to store
> pictures of your kids.
>

You might try looking into using freenas. it can do alot of the things you
are looking for and has support for zfs and iscsi at this point.
--
PGP e-mail is welcome! Get my 1024 bit signature key from:
<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x00D1EABB>

[BLUG] storage options

Hey Guys,


I'm looking for some perspectives on the storage options available
today, and on the horizon...


Specifically, I'm thinking about something that would be a little
handier and more future proof for my servers I run. Specifically, I run
VMWare Server on Linux and several virtual machines all on the same
hardware.

There are several different variables and technologies at this point:

- direct attach w. software or hardware RAID

- file systems such as ZFS and BTRFS and the cool stuff you can do with
them

- NAS

- external RAID arrays

- iSCSI

- getting higher quality disks such as SCSI and solid state drives

In a perfect world, here is what I'd like:


- A storage device not tethered to my servers so that I can add more
storage as needed without planning for downtime and running dd, and
upgrade server hardware without having to reinvest in storage.

- Fast I/O suitable for running VMs. There are tricks that can be
employed which will help one get by with SATA, but you still have to be
careful not to do heavy disk operations on the host as to render the
guests unresponsive. This is a nuisance, and of course makes
hypothetically backing up complete VM disk images difficult.

- Disk redundancy, i.e. some sort of RAID configuration.

- Some sort of solution somewhere between Cletus the Slackjaw Yokel's
Windows XP box and high level enterprise stuff. I like the idea of
spreading out the I/O demand across several cheap disks, adding more
disk as needed, replacing failed disks as necessary. I don't need crazy
fast I/O, I just need something a little more than a single SATA disk.
So, enterprise level technology is not what I'm after here, just
convenience and decent performance.

- Something that will be relatively future proof and not cost me a
fortune :)

- I'm using nearly 250 gig right now so my capacity needs are not
tremendous, but it would cost me a lot more than what I'm paying now to
run within a VPS provider such as Linode or Slicehost, and I'd rather
not get into the position where my costs grow significantly just to add
a modest amount of disk space. My storage needs don't warrant an
expensive SAN such as the ones that are no doubt in use by these
providers, one of my VMs is running Windows, and I like the control I
have now and I like working with my server provider. So, I'm not really
keen on moving my eight servers to VMs provided by one of these companies

- A way to backup all of this data (snapshots), preferably via the same
overall design so that I have something I can test with and perhaps even
fail over to in the event of an emergency. I know that offsite
redundancy is the golden egg for many companies, but hey, this is a
perfect world type wishlist! :) I use Amazon S3 for an offsite backup in
addition to my current backup to backup my most important data, but to
keep my costs to a minimum I'd prefer to just stay with rsync to
multiple cheap disks.


I'm interested in learning more about iSCSI, and am fascinated with
BTRFS and ZFS. Do any of you have any experience with any of this, have
any general recommendations, thoughts, predictions, anything? I don't
need to buy anything tomorrow, I'm just thinking that it would be nice
to think ahead a little.

It seems like I'm kind of stuck in between not needing to invest heavily
in storage like a big company would, yet I'm pushing the limits of
run-of-the-mill consumer grade direct attach SATA type stuff - the kind
of solution that would be great for using with Time Machine to store
pictures of your kids.


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug