On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:00:21PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>> we are completely restructuring our entire physical network around
>> the vserver concept.
>> it has proven itself in stability and performance in production to
>> the point we no longer see the need for dedicated servers except in
>> the most demanding instances (mostly our email server which cannot
>> be run as a guest until there is no slow down using > 130 ip addresses).
could you describe what scheme is behind those 130 ips
in your case? I'm trying to get an idea what addresses
such large-ip systems typically use ...
>> in our network restructuring, we wish to use our large storage
>> nfs system and place all the vserver guests on that sharing those
>> directories to be mounted on the proper dual opteron machine front
>> end as /vservers.
>> i am seriously thinking of also making /etc/vservers an nfs mount so
>> that each host configuration and guests live in a particular area on
>> the nfs to make switching machines a breeze if so needed.
>> does anyone see a problem with this idea? we will be using dual GB
>> nics into this nfs system in a pvtnet from each machine to facilitate
>> large amounts of data flow. public ip space will still use 100mb
that is basically what lycos is doing, and together with
them we implemented the xid tagging over nfs (requires
a patched filer though), which seems to work reasonably
>> if this can work efficiently (most of our guests are not disk i/o
>> bound.. those with ultra heavy disk i/o will live on each front end
>> machine), we can consolidate more than 100 machines into 2 front end
>> machines and one SAN system. This would free enough rack space that
>> if we don't need any dedicated
>> machines in the future we could easily add more than 1500 servers in
>> host/guest config in the same space 100 took up. it would also hugely
>> simplify backups and drop our electric bill in half or more.
yes, just requires really sensitive tuning, otherwise
the nfs will be the bottleneck
> Nice idea, certainly NFS is right for /etc/vservers, but consider using
> a network block device, like iSCSI or ATA over Ethernet for the
> filesystems used by vservers themselves. You'll save yourself a lot of
> headaches and the thing will probably run a *lot* faster.
this is a viable alternative too, at least iSCSI and AOE
was already tested with Linux-VServer, so it should work
> Unification would be impractical on top of all of this, but this is
> probably not a huge problem.
why would that be so? if it is the same block device, the
filesystem on-top can as well use unification, not across
different filesystems though ...
> Vserver mailing list
Vserver mailing list
Received on Wed Apr 26 10:44:59 2006