Why don't you have KVM running on the Gluster bricks as well? We have a 4 node cluster (each with 4x 300GB 15k SAS drives in RAID10), 10 gigabit SFP+ Ethernet (with redundant switching). Each node participates in a distribute+replicate Gluster namespace and runs KVM. We found this to be the most efficient (and fastest) way to run the cluster. This works well for us, although (due to Gluster using fuse) it isn't as fast as we would like. Currently waiting for the KVM driver that has been discussed a few times recently, that should make a huge difference to the performance for us. Cheers, Thomas -----Original Message----- From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Sebrecht Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 9:13 PM To: Gerald Brandt Cc: gluster-users Subject: Re: about HA infrastructure for hypervisors The 27/06/12, Gerald Brandt wrote: > Hi, > > If your switch breaks, you are done. Put each Gluster server on it's own switch. Right. Handling switch failures isn't what I'm most worried about but I guess that I'll need to add a network link between KVM hypervisors, too. Thanks for this tip, though. > > +----------------+ +----------------+ > > | |------------------| | > > | KVM hypervisor |---+ +-------| KVM hypervisor | > > | | | | | | > > +----------------+ | | +----------------+ > > | | > > +------+ +------+ > > |switch| |switch| > > +------+ +------+ > > | | | | > > +---------------+ | | | | +---------------+ > > | | | | | +-----| | > > | Glusterfs 3.3 |--+ +------)--------| Glusterfs 3.3 | > > | server A | | | server B | > > | |-----------+ | | > > +---------------+ +---------------+ -- Nicolas Sebrecht _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users -- Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering. http://www.mailguard.com.au
