From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM, iSCSI and High Availability Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:46:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4D908326.6050904@redhat.com> References: <4D8CFA90.20605@yazzy.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: lists@yazzy.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33989 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751919Ab1C1Mqd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:46:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4D8CFA90.20605@yazzy.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/25/2011 10:26 PM, Marcin M. Jessa wrote: > Hi. > > Over the last several days I've been reading, asking questions, > searching the Internet to find a viable HA stack for Ubuntu with KVM > virtualization and shared iSCSI storage. And I'm nearly as confused as > when I started. > > Basically I'm trying to build a KVM enviroment with an iSCSI SAN and > I'm not quite sure what approach to use for storing the virtual guests. > What I understand to get max speed I should install directly to iSCSI > exported raw devices instead of backing disks. > I'm not sure creating many small LUNs, one for each of the guests is a > good idea. > Would it be better to create just one big LUN and then use LVM to > devide it and assign one "chunk" for each of the guests? > In the same setup I would also like to implement some kind of > automatic failover so if one of the KVM hosts is down I could > automatically move guests over to the other one. Or just perform live > migration and move one of the guest over to a different host with > spare capacity. > What would be the best approach to implement a solution like that? > One LUN per image allows you to implement failover, LVM doesn't (but cluster-LVM does). I recommend using one LUN per image; it's much simpler. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function