ML
2017-Oct-11 07:53 UTC
[Gluster-users] gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
Thanks Rafi, that's understood now :) I'm considering to deploy gluster on a 4 x 40 TB? bricks, do you think it would better to make 1 LVM partition for each Volume I need or to make one Big LVM partition and start multiple volumes on it ? We'll store mostly big files (videos) on this environement. Le 11/10/2017 ? 09:34, Mohammed Rafi K C a ?crit?:> > On 10/11/2017 12:20 PM, ML wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've read on the gluster & redhat documentation, that it seems >> recommended to use XFS over LVM before creating & using gluster volumes. >> >> Sources : >> access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Storage/3/html/Administration_Guide/Formatting_and_Mounting_Bricks.html >> >> gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator Guide/Setting Up Volumes >> >> >> My point is : do we really need LVM ? > This recommendations was added after gluster-snapshot. Gluster snapshot > relays on LVM snapshot. So if you start with out lvm, in future if you > want to use snapshot then it would be difficult, hence the > recommendation to use xfs on top of lvm. > > > Regards > Rafi KC > >> For example , on a dedicated server with disks & partitions that will >> not change of size, it doesn't seems necessary to use LVM. >> >> I can't understand clearly wich partitioning strategy would be the >> best for "static size" hard drives : >> >> 1 LVM+XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes >> or 1 LVM+XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per LVM+XFS partition >> or 1 XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes >> or 1 XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per XFS partition >> >> What do you use on your servers ? >> >> Thanks for your help! :) >> >> Quentin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Mohammed Rafi K C
2017-Oct-11 08:00 UTC
[Gluster-users] gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
Volumes are aggregation of bricks, so I would consider bricks as a unique entity here rather than volumes. Taking the constraints from the blog [1]. * All bricks should be carved out from an independent thinly provisioned logical volume (LV). In other words, no two brick should share a common LV. More details about thin provisioning and thin provisioned snapshot can be found here. * This thinly provisioned LV should only be used for forming a brick. * Thin pool from which the thin LVs are created should have sufficient space and also it should have sufficient space for pool metadata. You can refer the blog post here [1]. [1] : rajesh-joseph.blogspot.in/p/gluster-volume-snapshot-howto.html Regards Rafi KC On 10/11/2017 01:23 PM, ML wrote:> Thanks Rafi, that's understood now :) > > I'm considering to deploy gluster on a 4 x 40 TB bricks, do you think > it would better to make 1 LVM partition for each Volume I need or to > make one Big LVM partition and start multiple volumes on it ? > > We'll store mostly big files (videos) on this environement. > > > > > Le 11/10/2017 ? 09:34, Mohammed Rafi K C a ?crit : >> >> On 10/11/2017 12:20 PM, ML wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I've read on the gluster & redhat documentation, that it seems >>> recommended to use XFS over LVM before creating & using gluster >>> volumes. >>> >>> Sources : >>> access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Storage/3/html/Administration_Guide/Formatting_and_Mounting_Bricks.html >>> >>> >>> gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator Guide/Setting Up Volumes >>> >>> >>> >>> My point is : do we really need LVM ? >> This recommendations was added after gluster-snapshot. Gluster snapshot >> relays on LVM snapshot. So if you start with out lvm, in future if you >> want to use snapshot then it would be difficult, hence the >> recommendation to use xfs on top of lvm. >> >> >> Regards >> Rafi KC >> >>> For example , on a dedicated server with disks & partitions that will >>> not change of size, it doesn't seems necessary to use LVM. >>> >>> I can't understand clearly wich partitioning strategy would be the >>> best for "static size" hard drives : >>> >>> 1 LVM+XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes >>> or 1 LVM+XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per LVM+XFS partition >>> or 1 XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes >>> or 1 XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per XFS partition >>> >>> What do you use on your servers ? >>> >>> Thanks for your help! :) >>> >>> Quentin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >
Alastair Neil
2017-Oct-11 14:39 UTC
[Gluster-users] gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
LVM is also good if you want to add ssd cache. It is more flexible and easier to manage and expand than bcache. On 11 October 2017 at 04:00, Mohammed Rafi K C <rkavunga at redhat.com> wrote:> > Volumes are aggregation of bricks, so I would consider bricks as a > unique entity here rather than volumes. Taking the constraints from the > blog [1]. > > * All bricks should be carved out from an independent thinly provisioned > logical volume (LV). In other words, no two brick should share a common > LV. More details about thin provisioning and thin provisioned snapshot > can be found here. > * This thinly provisioned LV should only be used for forming a brick. > * Thin pool from which the thin LVs are created should have sufficient > space and also it should have sufficient space for pool metadata. > > You can refer the blog post here [1]. > > [1] : rajesh-joseph.blogspot.in/p/gluster-volume-snapshot- > howto.html > > Regards > Rafi KC > > > On 10/11/2017 01:23 PM, ML wrote: > > Thanks Rafi, that's understood now :) > > > > I'm considering to deploy gluster on a 4 x 40 TB bricks, do you think > > it would better to make 1 LVM partition for each Volume I need or to > > make one Big LVM partition and start multiple volumes on it ? > > > > We'll store mostly big files (videos) on this environement. > > > > > > > > > > Le 11/10/2017 ? 09:34, Mohammed Rafi K C a ?crit : > >> > >> On 10/11/2017 12:20 PM, ML wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I've read on the gluster & redhat documentation, that it seems > >>> recommended to use XFS over LVM before creating & using gluster > >>> volumes. > >>> > >>> Sources : > >>> access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_ > Storage/3/html/Administration_Guide/Formatting_and_Mounting_Bricks.html > >>> > >>> > >>> gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator% > 20Guide/Setting%20Up%20Volumes/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My point is : do we really need LVM ? > >> This recommendations was added after gluster-snapshot. Gluster snapshot > >> relays on LVM snapshot. So if you start with out lvm, in future if you > >> want to use snapshot then it would be difficult, hence the > >> recommendation to use xfs on top of lvm. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> Rafi KC > >> > >>> For example , on a dedicated server with disks & partitions that will > >>> not change of size, it doesn't seems necessary to use LVM. > >>> > >>> I can't understand clearly wich partitioning strategy would be the > >>> best for "static size" hard drives : > >>> > >>> 1 LVM+XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes > >>> or 1 LVM+XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per LVM+XFS partition > >>> or 1 XFS partition = multiple gluster volumes > >>> or 1 XFS partition = 1 gluster volume per XFS partition > >>> > >>> What do you use on your servers ? > >>> > >>> Thanks for your help! :) > >>> > >>> Quentin > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-users mailing list > >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org > >>> lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20171011/86690bcc/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
- gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
- gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
- gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?
- gluster volume + lvm : recommendation or neccessity ?