Server and desktop virtualization

[dengar]

I see some folks using the ReadyNAS with VMware ESX, but what about Citrix XenServer and Microsoft Hyper-V?

Any thoughts or preferences about NFS vs iSCSI?

[dbott67]

I have no preference, however, most of my experience is with VMWare server running on Windows-based or Ubuntu computers. A month ago or so, I tried to install VirtualBox on the ReadyNAS Pro but got hung-up on the kernel headers:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=21848&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p119456

The one thing I noticed about VirtualBox is that is has an option for VBoxHeadless, a VRDP-only server, that seems to fit the ReadyNAS model nicely.

At present, this is something I'm only doing for personal edification, but eventually I hope to get a couple of Pro's for work to provide off-site backup, as well as a few other features from a network management/administration perspective. A rack-mount Pro would fit the bill nicely!

-Dave

[lancer]

iSCSI and RHEL5.2 with Xen kernel

[hno]

For virtualization I am using Linux KVM.


NFS and iSCSI serves different networked storage purposes. Both important.

NFS provides shared file storage.

iSCSI provides per-server networked drives at block level.

[ed_zachary]

hno - you can actually use NFS to serve up VM data for most virtualization servers. It is a really nice option because you don't have to reserve capacity in a LUN which may or may not be filled.

In essence, NFS on a ReadyNAS gives you access to a whole volume's worth of capacity. If you used iSCSI you'd reserve capacity in a LUN, then put your VMDKs in it - but if the LUN it wasn't full, you'd be wasting the remaining capacity.

It's wacky, I know, but increasingly common.

[BobRoss]

VMWare ESX 3 can use NAS for storage? That would be nice, right now we're running on an IBM iSCSI SAN (15K SAS drives)... But for some of our less important things, exposing the Pro as storage would be kind of nice.

The only problem I see is that the snapshot stuff will absolutely fill up with VMWare images...

[dengar]

Yes, it can use the NFS protocol (traditionally a NAS protocol) and there are folks on these forums already doing it!

The snapshot reserve would need to be large, but the data change rate would govern the speed that it filled up. Note too that if you use NFS the reserve can be smaller than an iSCSI LUN because the snapshot only tracks the changes in the data you are storing. A LUN's contents must be copied every time (regardless of whether the LUN is full or not).

Yoh-dah, can you confirm the behavior of our snapshots?

[yoh-dah]

Yes, it can use the NFS protocol (traditionally a NAS protocol) and there are folks on these forums already doing it!

The snapshot reserve would need to be large, but the data change rate would govern the speed that it filled up. Note too that if you use NFS the reserve can be smaller than an iSCSI LUN because the snapshot only tracks the changes in the data you are storing. A LUN's contents must be copied every time (regardless of whether the LUN is full or not).

Yoh-dah, can you confirm the behavior of our snapshots?

Actually, snapshots are block-based, so only the blocks that get changed are copied into the reserved space. This is true for both NFS and iSCSI LUN. With iSCSI, the whole content would not need to be copied every time, just the blocks that are changed.

[BobRoss]

Ahhh that might be nice! I will try it and see. Another thing that would be nice -- dedupe for the VMs...

[promaster]

Hi i get 150mbit/s write speed & 230mbit/s read speed over CIFS, but only 40mbit/s read and write with NFS on my Duo box with vmware ESXi U3, but if i do the same test to an old pc with FreeNAS with NFS i get 110mbit/s write speed, any ideers ?

[starg4ze]

I have no preference, however, most of my experience is with VMWare server running on Windows-based or Ubuntu computers. A month ago or so, I tried to install VirtualBox on the ReadyNAS Pro but got hung-up on the kernel headers:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=21848&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p119456

The one thing I noticed about VirtualBox is that is has an option for VBoxHeadless, a VRDP-only server, that seems to fit the ReadyNAS model nicely.

At present, this is something I'm only doing for personal edification, but eventually I hope to get a couple of Pro's for work to provide off-site backup, as well as a few other features from a network management/administration perspective. A rack-mount Pro would fit the bill nicely!

-Dave

How is it going with the "VirtualBox-on-PRO" ? Success?

I'm not "autorized" to follow your link...

/Sg

[beisser]

I'm not "autorized" to follow your link...

/Sg

thats because the link is in a private subforum.

i bet he didnt pay attention to that