Hi, maybe, in fact, a clean iscsi implementation would be better, because more useable in general. So the MS hyper-V people could use it too. ---- For me, when it comes to iSCSI ( we tested so far the tgtd module ), the problem is at most on the reliability part when it comes to resilence in case the ceph cluster changes from OK to what ever else. So if the iSCSI implementation could receive some work, that even if PGs are changing in the backfilling/degregated/... state, things will just continue to work. Thats currently not the case. Even more evil: the tgtd module currently seems not to support to have ONE iSCSI target being mounted to MULTIPLE vmware esxi nodes. So in fact you cant use it as shared storage because you receive very fast readlocks which are never released and preventing other nodes from using the same LUN. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards Oliver Dzombic IP-Interactive mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anschrift: IP Interactive UG ( haftungsbeschraenkt ) Zum Sonnenberg 1-3 63571 Gelnhausen HRB 93402 beim Amtsgericht Hanau Geschäftsführung: Oliver Dzombic Steuer Nr.: 35 236 3622 1 UST ID: DE274086107 Am 06.10.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Daniel Schwager: > Hi all, > > we are using Ceph (jewel 10.2.2, 10GBit Ceph frontend/backend, 3 nodes, each 8 OSD's and 2 journal SSD's) > in out VMware environment especially for test environments and templates - but currently > not for productive machines (because of missing FC-redundancy & performance). > > On our Linux based SCST 4GBit fiber channel proxy, 16 ceph-rbd devices (non-caching, in total 10 TB) > creating a LVM (stripped) volume which is published as a FC-target to our VMware cluster. > Looks fine, works stable. But currently the proxy is not redundant (only one head). > Performance is ok (a), but not that good than our IBM Storwize 3700 SAN (16 HDD's). > Especially for small IO's (4k), the IBM is twice as fast as Ceph. > > Native ceph integration to VMware would be great (-: > > Best regards > Daniel > > (a) Atto Benchmark screenshots - IBM Storwize 37000 vs. Ceph > https://dtnet.storage.dtnetcloud.com/d/684b330eea/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > DT Netsolution GmbH - Taläckerstr. 30 - D-70437 Stuttgart > Geschäftsführer: Daniel Schwager, Stefan Hörz - HRB Stuttgart 19870 > Tel: +49-711-849910-32, Fax: -932 - Mailto:daniel.schwager@xxxxxxxx > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick McGarry >> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:33 PM >> To: Ceph-User; Ceph Devel >> Subject: Ceph + VMWare >> >> Hey guys, >> >> Starting to buckle down a bit in looking at how we can better set up >> Ceph for VMWare integration, but I need a little info/help from you >> folks. >> >> If you currently are using Ceph+VMWare, or are exploring the option, >> I'd like some simple info from you: >> >> 1) Company >> 2) Current deployment size >> 3) Expected deployment growth >> 4) Integration method (or desired method) ex: iscsi, native, etc >> >> Just casting the net so we know who is interested and might want to >> help us shape and/or test things in the future if we can make it >> better. Thanks. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |