Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 258
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by CGotzmann View Post
    Hmmm... could give AppLogic a run now that they have a solution to storage performance / redundancy...
    Sure could. Can't wait to see real world performance and reliability.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    162
    Thanks for the word Gluster. I hadn't heard of this.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWiseOne View Post
    Beta is not open yet, but from the screenshots I've seen I am fairly confident it is gluster based.
    Just a quick note - our storage solution is not gluster based. I have a team in Cambridge, UK, that has architected and engineered the storage platform from scratch.


    D
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com & SolusVM.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWiseOne View Post
    Beta is not open yet, but from the screenshots I've seen I am fairly confident it is gluster based. With gluster you can set the number of copies of data to keep, ie. 2, 4, 6, etc. When dealing with dozens of head nodes and hundreds of disks it is considered a "bad idea" with gluster to only keep 2 copies of data, 4 is preferred. So there is thin provisioning and dedupe, but at the cost of maintaining 4 copies of everything. My other concern is that we've been able to make a SATA SAN scale really well by using minimal SSD caching, but with this type of system there is no cache so you'll most definitely need to watch your SATA storage and need the ability to offer SAS/SSD storage. This all being said, we're super eager for the beta to open up to verify/test all of this
    It would be great if you could specify 1 or 2 copies of data be stored on one tier (SSD for example), and store extra copies on another tier which is only used for disaster recovery purposes. If you had 2 copies on SSD, the chances of losing both at once is pretty small so long as the storage is smart enough to keep the data on separate servers, and then the cost to keep extra copies on hard disks is almost nothing in comparison to storing 4 copies on SSD.
    Phoenix Dedicated Servers -- IOFLOOD.com
    Email: sales [at] ioflood.com
    Skype: funkywizard
    Backup Storage VPS -- 1TBVPS.com

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    Just a quick note - our storage solution is not gluster based. I have a team in Cambridge, UK, that has architected and engineered the storage platform from scratch.


    D
    Thanks for the clarification : )
    Phoenix Dedicated Servers -- IOFLOOD.com
    Email: sales [at] ioflood.com
    Skype: funkywizard
    Backup Storage VPS -- 1TBVPS.com

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    It would be great if you could specify 1 or 2 copies of data be stored on one tier (SSD for example), and store extra copies on another tier which is only used for disaster recovery purposes. If you had 2 copies on SSD, the chances of losing both at once is pretty small so long as the storage is smart enough to keep the data on separate servers, and then the cost to keep extra copies on hard disks is almost nothing in comparison to storing 4 copies on SSD.
    that is actually a very very good idea. You are able to specify tiers of storage, and you can guarantee IO's to specific clients/drives for QoS etc. You are also able to define the copies per virtual drive - but currently you are not able to mix it so the copies would be on lower tiers of drives. That makes perfect sense - I'll pass it on to the guys!

    Thanks...


    D
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com & SolusVM.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by cwl@apaqdigital View Post

    is this a real game changer for the SAN hardware as we know it?
    http://onapp.com/storage/
    not sure about a game changer, but, its certainly an indication of the trend moving forward, where storage will become more flexible and vendors will start to deliver these sorts of storage solutions as a service...

    Im not sure what tech they used - it looks like a cool offering and very cool that more storage options are coming available.. expect more of this over time

    Building your SAN is easy. Using a simple web-based UI you can select physical disks from any servers connected to the platform, and combine them into virtual data stores to create your SAN. Disks can be any size: they are simply grouped by performance, which enables you to create tiers of storage based on low performance/high capacity SATA drives, high-performance SSDs, or anything in between. A powerful CLI provides low-level access for sysadmins, too.
    this does sound a lot like ZFS - we have been using this to backbone our cloud for quite awhile.. better then tiers though (and you can still tier with zfs if you like), you can create massive SSD read/write caching layers - we can grow a caching layer by adding free SSD drives found anywhere in our network.. or we can grow zpools of sata/sas capacity type of storage behind the caches on the fly, again using any drive available in our network...

    I dont think this type of solution is unique (heck, zfs has been around for ages) - but, the concept of packaging these solutions for service providers is pretty new and onapp is certainly - and continues to be - ahead of the curve with delivering solutions to the market specifically geared towards service providers...

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    1,518
    i was thinking it sounded like zfs with some nice management features.


    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    not sure about a game changer, but, its certainly an indication of the trend moving forward, where storage will become more flexible and vendors will start to deliver these sorts of storage solutions as a service...

    Im not sure what tech they used - it looks like a cool offering and very cool that more storage options are coming available.. expect more of this over time



    this does sound a lot like ZFS - we have been using this to backbone our cloud for quite awhile.. better then tiers though (and you can still tier with zfs if you like), you can create massive SSD read/write caching layers - we can grow a caching layer by adding free SSD drives found anywhere in our network.. or we can grow zpools of sata/sas capacity type of storage behind the caches on the fly, again using any drive available in our network...

    I dont think this type of solution is unique (heck, zfs has been around for ages) - but, the concept of packaging these solutions for service providers is pretty new and onapp is certainly - and continues to be - ahead of the curve with delivering solutions to the market specifically geared towards service providers...

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberhouse View Post
    i was thinking it sounded like zfs with some nice management features.
    It's not - I've uploaded some more info for you guys here: http://ditlev.onapp.com/storage.zip
    It's Julian's (who runs the storage team at OnApp) presentation from worldhostingdays...hopefully that helps answering some of the questions here.


    D

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    It's not - I've uploaded some more info for you guys here: http://ditlev.onapp.com/storage.zip
    It's Julian's (who runs the storage team at OnApp) presentation from worldhostingdays...hopefully that helps answering some of the questions here.


    D
    you guys really built something proprietary to do what ZFS already does?

    eitherway, Im impressed as always Ditlev - you guys continually package solutions for our industry.. keep it up bud!!!

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    you guys really built something proprietary to do what ZFS already does?

    eitherway, Im impressed as always Ditlev - you guys continually package solutions for our industry.. keep it up bud!!!
    ZFS is kind of proprietary when you consider that it only runs properly in solaris (or via a low performance module under linux). Such a configuration is not entirely useful for the average service provider.
    Phoenix Dedicated Servers -- IOFLOOD.com
    Email: sales [at] ioflood.com
    Skype: funkywizard
    Backup Storage VPS -- 1TBVPS.com

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    ZFS is kind of proprietary when you consider that it only runs properly in solaris (or via a low performance module under linux).
    yes, it runs on solaris, but, as iscsi attached volumes, it doesnt matter whether you are running linux or windows or whatever. its certainly not "low performance" - if you saw the metrics, you would be hard pressed to replicate it with anything.. we used netapp for years, and no matter what caching you used, you arent coming close..

    Such a configuration is not entirely useful for the average service provider.
    you're right - the average provider could not implement this. this is the value companies like onapp are bringing, where they are developing interfaces and solutions specifically geared to service providers. just seemed logical, based on the functionality - that they would build this on top of something already proven - like an open standards file system and volume manager like zfs.. if they went their own way, so be it.. Im sure it will be an effective solution, but, its not ground breaking - these things exist - what IS groundbreaking is how they package and build solutions and deliver them specifically for service providers - quite impressive

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    yes, it runs on solaris, but, as iscsi attached volumes, it doesnt matter whether you are running linux or windows or whatever. its certainly not "low performance" - if you saw the metrics, you would be hard pressed to replicate it with anything.. we used netapp for years, and no matter what caching you used, you arent coming close..



    you're right - the average provider could not implement this. this is the value companies like onapp are bringing, where they are developing interfaces and solutions specifically geared to service providers. just seemed logical, based on the functionality - that they would build this on top of something already proven - like an open standards file system and volume manager like zfs.. if they went their own way, so be it.. Im sure it will be an effective solution, but, its not ground breaking - these things exist - what IS groundbreaking is how they package and build solutions and deliver them specifically for service providers - quite impressive
    I mean to say that because the storage needs to be on a solaris box, then for the typical service provider that you would need separate storage nodes from everything else since most of their hardware won't be running solaris, which wouldn't really work given what onapp storage is looking to accomplish here, which is to allow you to use disks attached to your existing servers.
    Phoenix Dedicated Servers -- IOFLOOD.com
    Email: sales [at] ioflood.com
    Skype: funkywizard
    Backup Storage VPS -- 1TBVPS.com

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    I mean to say that because the storage needs to be on a solaris box, then for the typical service provider that you would need separate storage nodes from everything else since most of their hardware won't be running solaris, which wouldn't really work given what onapp storage is looking to accomplish here, which is to allow you to use disks attached to your existing servers.
    I understand and agree.. onapp is trying to do something different. sounded like zfs to me, but, great if its not

    curious to see this in action

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    1,518
    zfs runs pretty well on freebsd 9 i am running some live tests on some servers and from what i see zfs is kicking ass.

    What i would love to see is a great control panel to manage zfs pools and everything.


    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    I mean to say that because the storage needs to be on a solaris box, then for the typical service provider that you would need separate storage nodes from everything else since most of their hardware won't be running solaris, which wouldn't really work given what onapp storage is looking to accomplish here, which is to allow you to use disks attached to your existing servers.

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberhouse View Post
    zfs runs pretty well on freebsd 9 i am running some live tests on some servers and from what i see zfs is kicking ass.

    What i would love to see is a great control panel to manage zfs pools and everything.
    thats what I thought this was and got sooo excited !!!

    freebsd has been doing some serious work with zfs, Im not surprised to hear this. we run it on solaris, but, I was quite curious about freebsd based on the investment they have made recently here

    thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    294
    This is interesting to say the least. But we shall see soon!

  18. #43
    ZFS is not a clustered file system. It doesn't scale to multiple nodes. (But it can be used as the base to build a clustered file system). This product seems much more like Red Hat's Gluster which provides a scale-out clustered storage solution across any number of commodity nodes.

  19. #44
    Trust me guys, building a storage solution was not on our minds when we first started OnApp over 2 years ago, we looked everywhere for a solution that would fit the demand of the clients we where getting onboard, we looked at it all, Gluster, ZFS, Sheepdog, Ceph, you named it, we checked it out.

    Problem was, nothing really fit the bill 100%, everything was a compromise, unfinished or simply too expensive, so as the old saying goes "see a need ?, fill a need !" we decided to do something new, to fit the exact requirements of our industry, in the process we find ourselves building something that transcends it, and thats good

    This was a major investment for us, but we felt unless this problem was cracked, the adoption of the cloud as a underline technology (instead of just a marketing term) would not be feasible for all.

    I'm bias of course, but I think it's revolutionary stuff
    Carlos Rego
    OnApp CVO

    The Cloud Engine

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,605
    This was a major investment for us, but we felt unless this problem was cracked, the adoption of the cloud as a underline technology (instead of just a marketing term) would not be feasible for all.
    But my view is that this is right - offering Cloud shouldn't be an adoption for all providers and it shouldn't be made too cheap to do so. As it stands at the moment, the requirement of decent investment in to establishing a Cloud solution makes the product more trustworthy. Whilst I think that the new storage product looks good, I can't wait for it to be past the initial 'Beta' and ready for production to see how it compares to existing options. But "would not be feasible for all." is in my opinion, how it should remain. (Maybe I'm just being narrow minded?)

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,173
    How does this OnApp storage solution compare to OpenStack Object Storage?

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    38
    Does the disks need to be directly attached or can they behind a hardware raid controller?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Doublepush View Post
    Does the disks need to be directly attached or can they behind a hardware raid controller?
    hmm - thinking really hard - Why would you put a raid controller in front of the drives presented to OnApp?

    Quote Originally Posted by DMEHosting View Post
    How does this OnApp storage solution compare to OpenStack Object Storage?
    It's a different beast all together. OnApp storage will come with a fully compatible S3 Object Storage interface, just like the OpenStack - but our storage platform is a replacement for your SAN. It's a distributed block storage, utilizing all the drives across your infrastructure.


    D
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com & SolusVM.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,605
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    hmm - thinking really hard - Why would you put a raid controller in front of the drives presented to OnApp?


    It's a different beast all together. OnApp storage will come with a fully compatible S3 Object Storage interface, just like the OpenStack - but our storage platform is a replacement for your SAN. It's a distributed block storage, utilizing all the drives across your infrastructure.


    D
    Presented with that bit in bold, I really can begin to see the benefits.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    hmm - thinking really hard - Why would you put a raid controller in front of the drives presented to OnApp?

    D
    Well, if you have troubles disabling or removing the controller..

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2012, 11:33 AM
  2. "Single Pane" management SAN software?
    By ItsChrisG in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 06:34 PM
  3. What is the FREE software that work as same as "WHMAP" or "Clientexec"?
    By zabretooth in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 02:28 PM

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •