Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Onapp 3.1 with integrated storage

    Iwe tried to find user comments on the Onapp 3.1 with integrated storage. Evaluating a setup with 10G switches and SSD disks.

    Strange, but there has not been reliable reviews on this product, only "marketing jargon".

    Any using? 3.0 was full of bugs with storage, is the 3.1 improved in this area and production ready?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    83
    Take a look on their website and ask for advice

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    My friend has tested OnApp with Integrated Storage - He will never use it again. This product isn't enterprise ready, still buggy storage system.Also, if you need to replace failed disk drives, you need to shutdown hypervisor. Yeah, there is almost no reviews about it. Maybe you could try it by yourself?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    3.2 was released yesterday, and while we've had teething issues with the storage platform, I think it's fair to say that with the newest features, fixes and analytics tools...it's a mature and solid platform, ready for primetime.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,664
    I'm on the fence still, the drive issue is still present it appears as I failed an exported drive yesterday and it could not be hot swapped. The IO is not even close to what we saw on Open-E or Nexenta for storage and those are its main competitors. As for calling it a mature program I think you are jumping the gun when basic hot swap functions still have issues, the only way to install is wait for the integration team and functions such as raid cache are non existent. It has potential, but it will be down the road when the basic features are fixed.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kris1351 View Post
    I'm on the fence still, the drive issue is still present it appears as I failed an exported drive yesterday and it could not be hot swapped.
    Have you upgraded to 3.1+ ? There is a utility now included in the base ********t image named diskhotplug which allows you to assign and unassign physical drives from the live storage controllers in order add and remove drives without having to reboot servers. Here's an overview of the CLI:

    [[email protected] ~]# /usr/pythoncontroller/diskhotplug
    Usage:
    diskhotplug list
    diskhotplug assign <Controller> <Slot> <device>
    diskhotplug unassign <Controller> <Slot>
    diskhotplug initNewController
    diskhotplug restartController <Controller>

    You can unassign existing drives and assign new drives to the storage platform dynamically now, e.g.:

    [[email protected] ~]# /usr/pythoncontroller/diskhotplug list
    Controller 0
    Slot 0 - /dev/sda (SCSIid:Z2A7VJQD_Z2A7VJQD,NodeID:130322041)
    Slot 1 - /dev/sdb (SCSIid:9WM6B5WQS_9WM6B5WQ,NodeID:4043912490)
    Slot 2 - /dev/sdc (SCSIid:9WM6B955S_9WM6B955,NodeID:2281894381)
    Slot 3 - /dev/sdd (SCSIid:CVPR116003YH160DGN_2CW16_CVPR116003YH160DGN,NodeID:476612602)
    Controller 1
    Slot 0 - /dev/sde (SCSIid:350025388500786eb_S1D9NEAD904298P,NodeID:235613508)
    Slot 1 - /dev/sdf (SCSIid:35000cca0220b54c8_KPV675RF,NodeID:2574447922)
    Slot 2 - EMPTY
    Slot 3 - EMPTY

    [[email protected] ~]# /usr/pythoncontroller/diskhotplug unassign 1 1
    [[email protected] ~]# /usr/pythoncontroller/diskhotplug assign 1 1 /dev/sdf

    Hope this helps!

    Julian

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by kris1351 View Post
    functions such as raid cache are non existent. It has potential, but it will be down the road when the basic features are fixed.
    We will be adding RAID cache in the very near future. For the time being you can of course use any of the hardware-based cache controllers to give the extra performance boost.

    Regarding performance, there are too many variables that can impact IO throughput so I don't know what might cause your individual issue, although we'd be happy to delve deeper. As a general rule of thumb, you should be able to get close to the lowest bottleneck limit wherever you are testing, whether that is the raw drive controller bottleneck, drive speed or network interface(s)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RONIS View Post
    My friend has tested OnApp with Integrated Storage - He will never use it again. This product isn't enterprise ready, still buggy storage system.Also, if you need to replace failed disk drives, you need to shutdown hypervisor. Yeah, there is almost no reviews about it. Maybe you could try it by yourself?
    Since 3.1+ this is no longer the case, there is disk hotplug support for IS without requiring server reboot. It is a very stable platform and I encourage you to retry

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone using OnApp Integrated Storage?
    By xBenx in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 04-28-2014, 07:28 PM
  2. OnApp Storage
    By webhost4all in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-07-2013, 07:03 PM
  3. [FEATURED] OnApp Cloud: Hardware SAN v OnApp Storage (SANity)?
    By [email protected] in forum Colocation and Data Centers
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 04-24-2013, 05:59 PM
  4. Anyone using OnApp Storage?
    By ChaosInMind in forum Colocation and Data Centers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-14-2012, 10:51 AM
  5. onapp storage
    By Interim in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-05-2012, 05:12 PM

Posting Permissions

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