[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS for DBs..MySQL, PGSQL, etc; How about VMware?

Dean Hildebrand dhildeb at us.ibm.com
Fri Sep 4 19:41:35 BST 2015


> Dean,
> I'll look in to those. Thanks. Are those all in 4.1 and in the new
> protocol servers? Does HAWC work when the client is over NFS? I assume
> the server would take care of it.. Haven't read much yet.

FGDB was in 3.4 I believe, and HAWC is in 4.1.1 ptf1....but there are other
items that helped performance for these environments, so using the latest
is always best :)  Yes, hawc is independent of nfs...its all in gpfs.

>
> Christoph,
> Looks like that RDM is only for ESX (the older linux-based
> hypervisor), not ESXi. AFAIK there's no GPFS client that can run on
> ESXi yet, so the only options are remote mounting GPFS via NFS on the
> Hypervisor to store the VMs.
> Or, inside the VM, but that's not what I want.
>
> Simon,
> I'm talking about on the hypervisor. Looking for a way to use GPFS to
> store VMs instead of standing up a SAN, but want it to be safe and
> consistent. Thus my worry about backing VM disks by NFS backed by
> GPFS...

>50% of VMWare deployments use NFS... and NFS+GPFS obeys nfs semantics, so
together your VMs are just as safe as with a SAN.
Dean

>
> -Zach
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Simon Thompson (Research Computing -
> IT Services) <S.J.Thompson at bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > When you say VMware, do you mean to the hypervisor or vms? Running
> vms can of course be gpfs clients.
> >
> > Protocol servers use nfs ganesha server, but I've only looked at
> smb support.
> >
> > Simon
> > ________________________________________
> > From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at gpfsug.org [gpfsug-discuss-
> bounces at gpfsug.org] on behalf of Zachary Giles [zgiles at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 03 September 2015 15:59
> > To: gpfsug main discussion list
> > Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS for DBs..MySQL, PGSQL, etc; How about
VMware?
> >
> > On that same note...
> > How about VMware?
> > Obviously I guess really the only way would be via NFS export.. which
> > cNFS was .. not the best at (my opinion). Maybe Protocol Servers are
> > better? Maybe also a "don't do it"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Zach
> >
> >
> > --
> > Zach Giles
> > zgiles at gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Zach Giles
> zgiles at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20150904/e0171ae3/attachment.htm>


More information about the gpfsug-discuss mailing list