On 13 September 2013 17:12, Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [We're not using is *instead* of rbd, we're using it *in addition to* > rbd. For example, our OpenStack (users') cinder volumes are stored in > rbd.] So you probably have cinder volumes in rbd but you boot instances from images. This is why you need cephfs for /var/lib/nova/instances. I suggest creating volumes from images and booting instances from them. Cephfs is not required then > What we want to achieve is to have a shared "instance store" > (i.e. "/var/lib/nova/instances") across all our nova-compute nodes, so > that we can e.g. live-migrate instances between different hosts. And we > want to use Ceph for that. > > In Folsom (but also in Grizzly, I think), this isn't straightforward to > do with RBD. A feature[1] to make it more straightforward was merged in > Havana(-3) just two weeks ago. I dont get it. I am successfully using live-migration (in Grizzly, havent try Folsom) of instances booted from cinder volumes stored as rbd volumes. What is not straightforward to do? Are you using KVM? > Yes, people want shared storage that they can access in a POSIXly way > from multiple VMs. CephFS is a relatively easy way to give them that, > though I don't consider it "production-ready" - mostly because secure > isolation between different tenants is hard to achieve. For now GlusterFS may fits better here. regards -- Maciej Gałkiewicz Shelly Cloud Sp. z o. o., Sysadmin http://shellycloud.com/, macias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx KRS: 0000440358 REGON: 101504426 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |