[Gluster-users] Gluster and LVM

[Strahil]

Correct me if I'm wrong but thin LVM is needed for creation of snapshots.

I am a new gluster user , but I don't see any LVM issues so far.

Best Regards,
Strahil NikolovOn Apr 8, 2019 21:15, Alex K <rightkicktech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I use gluster on top of lvm for several years without any issues. 
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 10:43 Felix Kölzow <felix.koelzow at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you very much for your response.
>>
>> I fully agree that using LVM has great advantages. Maybe there is a misunderstanding,
>>
>> but I really got the recommendation to not use (normal) LVM in combination with gluster to 
>>
>> increase the volume. Maybe someone in the community has some good or bad experience
>>
>> using LVM and gluster in combination. So please let me know :)
>>
>>
>>> One of the arguments for things like Gluster and Ceph is that you can many storage nodes that operate in parallel so that the ideal is a very large number of small drive arrays over a small number of very large drive arrays.
>>
>> I also agree we that. In our case, we actually plan to get Redhat Gluster Storage Support and an increase of 
>>
>> storage nodes would mean an increase of support costs while the same amount of storage volume is available.
>>
>> So we are looking for a reasonable compromise.
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> On 03.04.19 17:12, Alvin Starr wrote:
>>>
>>> As a general rule I always suggest using LVM. 
>>> I have had LVM save my career a few times. 
>>> I believe that if you wish to use Gluster snapshots then the underlying system needs to be a thinly provisioned LVM volume. 
>>>
>>> Adding storage space to an LVM is easy and all modern file-systems support online growing so it is easy to grow a file-system. 
>>>
>>> If you have directory trees that are very deep and wide then you may want to put a bit of thought into how you configure your Gluster installation. 
>>> We have a volume with about 50M files and something like an xfs dump or rsync of the underlying filesystem will take close to a day but copying the data over Gluster takes weeks. 
>>> This is a problem with all clustered file systems because there is extra locking and co-ordination required for file operations. 
>>>
>>> Also you need to realize that the performance of something like the powervault is limited to the speed of the connection to your server. 
>>> So that a single SAS link is limited to 6Gb(for example) and so is your disk array but most internal raid controllers will support the number of ports * 6Gb. 
>>> This means that a computer with 12 drives in the front will access disk faster than a system with a 12 drive disk array attached by a few SAS links. 
>>>
>>> One of the arguments for things like Gluster and Ceph is that you can many storage nodes that operate in parallel so that the ideal is a very large number of small drive arrays over a small number of very large drive arrays. 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/3/19 10:20 AM, kbh-admin wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Hello Gluster-Community, 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we consider to build several Gluster-servers and have a question regarding  lvm and Glusterfs. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scenario 1: Snapshots 
>>>>
>>>> Of course, taking snapshots is a good capability and we want to use lvm for that. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scenaraio 2: Increase Gluster volume 
>>>>
>>>> We want to increase the Gluster volume by adding hdd's and/or by adding 
>>>>
>>>> dell powervaults later. We got the recommendation to set up a new Gluster volume 
>>>>
>>>> for the powervaults and don't use lvm in that case (lvresize ....) . 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would you suggest and how do you manage both lvm and Glusterfs together? 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Felix 
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>>> Gluster-users mailing list 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190408/6e8b4d2b/attachment.html>