+ Post New Thread
Page 12 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 664
Hardware Thread, Sun Storage 7110 in Technical; I have been as ked by many of you how and when we plan to impliment User Quotas on the ...
  1. #166
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,217
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    I have been as ked by many of you how and when we plan to impliment User Quotas on the S7000 range
    Is it not possible to use any of the File Server Resource Manager tools built into Windows server for this?

  2. #167
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,017
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 174 Times in 160 Posts
    Rep Power
    58
    cookie_monster - Unfortunately not, at least not to my knowledge. The files need to be going through and be stored on the Windows server for File Server Resource Manager to be able to manage the quotas, which is fair enough if you think about the way it works. FSRM cannot manage quotas on a remote filesystem, and if you enter a quota path in FSRM for a remote share it'll just tell you it's invalid.

    The solution to this is to map storage directly to the Windows box via iSCSI and use the Windows box to serve files. As Windows will be the one controlling and writing the files and will see the storage as a local drive then FSRM will be able to manage quotas on that space. However, in doing this you obviously lose a lot of the functionality of the SAN box and introduce a Windows server as a bottleneck and failure point. I'm a big fan of FSRM (see my 7410 thread) so I can fully appreciate why you'd want to make use of it.

    Phil - I've just had a glance through the OpenSolaris docs and I'll fully admit I haven't got my head around it all, but it appears they're doing quotas based on a user rather than a folder/path/share, is that correct? I can't help but feel a lot of people will find this somewhat confusing, particularly if they're coming from a Windows/FSRM background (which is likely why these quota questions are coming up).

    Certainly the way I'm used to doing quotas (and this will probably be true for most FSRM users) is something like this:

    • Set up my 'users' directory as 'X:\Users', and in that directory are folders called Username1, Username2, Username3, etc. for each user account. Depending on how people have things set up, the 'Users' folder might be shared or each user's individual folder might be shared.
    • In File Server Resource Manager I can create a quota, say 250MB, and add email/eventlog alerts at 90%, 95% and 100%. Some of these may come to me personally as a warning, and some may go to the user who's filling up the space to let them know what's going on.
    • I can then simply apply that quota to 'X:\Users' and tell it to apply to all existing subfolders and any new subfolders that are created. Obviously it will only apply to top-level subfolders, i.e. the Username1, Username2, etc. and won't apply down onto each subfolder individually inside those.
    • Each user then happily uses their directory, and when they get to 90% they get an email warning, and when they get to 100% they get another email and can't add any more files. This will apply to whoever is putting files in that directory, so if someone in my team accidentally tries to copy a huge file to someone's documents they'll also be stopped and get an email.


    I'm just slightly concerned that if quotas are based on user IDs rather than folders and paths, we'll lose much of this functionality and will be tied into who 'owns' a folder. This could create much confusion for users who have folders they own in several different places and hit a hard quota limit when they only have 5MB in their 'documents' but have 300MB in a 'resources' folder (where quotas aren't normally used as lots of people access that space).

    Sorry for the long post! Is there any hope for something that might replicate the kind of functionality we get with FSRM? cookie_monster, is this the type of thing you were talking about too, or am I on my own here?

    Cheers,
    Chris

  3. Thanks to Duke from:

    Hebdenlad (14th May 2009)

  4. #168

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,259
    Thank Post
    289
    Thanked 796 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    348
    Right, my brain hurts on this one! After a bit of reading, I think zfs already supports quotas on directories, the problem is that the web interface on the 7000 series doesn't yet implement a way to set this except on the share or the project.

    The new bit adds the option to enforce quotas by a user or a group on a file system. I could see some uses for that, for instance limiting each department to a certain amount of space in a share.

    So, I think what we are wanting mainly in schools is for there to be the ability in the Web Interface to add quotas to directories within a share. Can this be checked to see if it is in the roadmap Phil?

  5. Thanks to teejay from:

    Hebdenlad (14th May 2009)

  6. #169
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,017
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 174 Times in 160 Posts
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    The new bit adds the option to enforce quotas by a user or a group on a file system. I could see some uses for that, for instance limiting each department to a certain amount of space in a share.

    So, I think what we are wanting mainly in schools is for there to be the ability in the Web Interface to add quotas to directories within a share. Can this be checked to see if it is in the roadmap Phil?
    That's pretty much how I read the OpenSolaris stuff too, and the directory quotas is also exactly what we need here.

    This bit is a lower priority, but since we're building a wishlist - Is there any chance of some kind of email alerting for quotas in the future? We know the Sun S7000 can do email relays, so it'd be really awesome if the user who exceeded the limit got a customisable 'You have exceeded the allowed quota on folder \\san\share\folder, please delete some files or contact support@your.org for assistance' email. This makes a lot more sense to our users than just an error from Windows saying permission denied.

    Ever hopeful,
    Chris

  7. #170
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,217
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    @ Duke, yes that's what I'm talking about, it seems a bit like the Win2k quotas that were based on volumes and ownership which is nowhere near as comprehensive as FSRM.
    I see where you're coming from with your comment about the Windows server being a bottle neck but not as a single point of faliure? Is a single SAN device not also a single point of faliure as well? I'd be more concerned with performance.

    If I can't manage the quotas effectivly with the SAN then I might have to serve it up as an iSCSI device.


    teejay
    So, I think what we are wanting mainly in schools is for there to be the ability in the Web Interface to add quotas to directories within a share. Can this be checked to see if it is in the roadmap Phil?
    And can these limits/quotas be tied to Active Directory groups.
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 13th May 2009 at 09:58 PM.

  8. #171
    linescanner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    East Anglia
    Posts
    297
    Thank Post
    51
    Thanked 71 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by sjl View Post
    Hi,

    I have just created a fist draft of our proposed solution with the 7110, and 2 x X4140s and knocked it up in Visio.

    The set up is splitting the 7110 into two using a LUN for our ESXi VMWARE images and a CIFS share for storage.

    There is a private network for the SAN / iSCSI bit

    I have left quite a few labels off and also the networking of the management interfaces.

    I have attached it as an image – any feedback would be appreciated.

    thanks,

    Steve.
    Steve,

    this looks fine. I would do some testing against iSCSI and NFS. VMware do rate NFS as a good option, and after discussions with Phil, you should get better analytics using NFS.

    I have one question about the VM layout. Is one of the DC on your diagram the Forest root ? The reason I ask is that we are nervous of virtualising the forest root as you may end up in a whole world of hurt if you plan to recover a failure (OS) from a snap shot.

    Just an observation.

    If you need anymore help/info call me tomorrow.

  9. #172
    Hebdenlad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hebden Bridge
    Posts
    194
    Thank Post
    243
    Thanked 84 Times in 42 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Right, my brain hurts on this one! After a bit of reading, I think zfs already supports quotas on directories, the problem is that the web interface on the 7000 series doesn't yet implement a way to set this except on the share or the project.

    The new bit adds the option to enforce quotas by a user or a group on a file system. I could see some uses for that, for instance limiting each department to a certain amount of space in a share.

    So, I think what we are wanting mainly in schools is for there to be the ability in the Web Interface to add quotas to directories within a share. Can this be checked to see if it is in the roadmap Phil?
    I know it's early days on this in terms of implementation of User Quotas in the S7000. I'll try and find out of there are any screen shots / early release versions of the appliance software I can get hold of to clarify exactly what appears in the GUI and how it is managed at that level.

    Please bear with me on this. I know that User Quotas has been a biggie for customers (large universities and the like) and they are keen to have them as soon as possible.

    More later.

    Cheers,

    Phil

  10. Thanks to Hebdenlad from:

    Duke (14th May 2009)

  11. #173
    Hebdenlad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hebden Bridge
    Posts
    194
    Thank Post
    243
    Thanked 84 Times in 42 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Right, my brain hurts on this one! After a bit of reading, I think zfs already supports quotas on directories, the problem is that the web interface on the 7000 series doesn't yet implement a way to set this except on the share or the project.

    The new bit adds the option to enforce quotas by a user or a group on a file system. I could see some uses for that, for instance limiting each department to a certain amount of space in a share.

    So, I think what we are wanting mainly in schools is for there to be the ability in the Web Interface to add quotas to directories within a share. Can this be checked to see if it is in the roadmap Phil?
    have asked the question of the clever guys in the Fishworks team and await their reply.

    Cheers,

    Phil

  12. #174
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,217
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    I think this is worth a look for anyone thinking about SIMS or similar applications.

    The ability of NFS/CIFS to represent storage appliance as a local file system accessible by clients, allows file shared storage access. However, there is number of applications that do not require file sharing. Moreover, there are applications, whose performance is significantly degraded when accessing data using "file IO" approach, like databases and similar transaction-oriented applications.
    Our results, generated by running some of industry standard benchmarks, show that iSCSI significantly outperforms NFS for situations when performing streaming, database like accesses and small file transactions.

    It's an interesting read.

    Performance Comparison of IP Storage protocols (iSCSI, NFS and CIFS)

  13. Thanks to cookie_monster from:

    Hebdenlad (14th May 2009)

  14. #175
    Hebdenlad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hebden Bridge
    Posts
    194
    Thank Post
    243
    Thanked 84 Times in 42 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    I think this is worth a look for anyone thinking about SIMS or similar applications.






    It's an interesting read.

    Performance Comparison of IP Storage protocols (iSCSI, NFS and CIFS)
    Having read this article it kind of relates to the S7000 and doesn't relate to it either.

    In the S7000 we have (model depending) a combination of SSDs for both read and write biased acceleration and 7,200RPM SATA drives for the data. We also have zpool RAID equivalents rather than the traditional RAID as noted in the article.

    I've seen a lot of customers using NFS for their VM estate with really good performance coming off them and the ability to drill down even further on NFS analytics than iSCSI.

    Have a look on the Sun Fishworks blogs where there is a wealth of information and best practice from the really clever guys on the Fishworks team. also, just try it and see what performance you get. I'm guessing you'll be pleasantly surprised at how fast these boxes really are.

    I'm digging out some VMware best practice documents so if anyone wants them private me with your contact details and I'll send them off to you.

    Cheers,

    Phil

  15. #176

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,259
    Thank Post
    289
    Thanked 796 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    I think this is worth a look for anyone thinking about SIMS or similar applications.






    It's an interesting read.

    Performance Comparison of IP Storage protocols (iSCSI, NFS and CIFS)
    Yes, very interesting. The only points I would make on it are that it was done back in 2003, using very old versions of linux, so I don't know how the results would be the same on a current modern storage server. I think some testing has been done by people on here.

    I was thinking if some of us with Sun boxes could pool resources and run a few tests to get some definitive results, rather than us all reinventing the wheel all the time.

    The sort of answers we all seem to want are:

    NFS or iSCSI? I think this will depend on application, so we would need to test things like SIMS, Exchange, Web Server etc.

    VMWare or XEN?

    File servering performance through a VM?

    Peformance of CIFS for User Documents/Shares.

    I don't know how Sun would feel about these tests being done and data shared, Phil?

  16. #177
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,017
    Thank Post
    300
    Thanked 174 Times in 160 Posts
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    I see where you're coming from with your comment about the Windows server being a bottle neck but not as a single point of faliure? Is a single SAN device not also a single point of faliure as well? I'd be more concerned with performance.
    I guess I was looking at it from the point of view of a SAN being relatively simple to mirror, whereas setting up Windows servers with clustering for fault-tolerance is somewhat more complicated. I should have been more accurate as it's more another point of failure rather a single point of failure, so at least with a SAN there's only one thing to break before you lose your storage, rather than either the Windows box or the SAN going down and taking away your storage.

    Phil - Thanks for looking into the quota issue, I think there are a lot of people who will really appreciate it. I think Andy mentioned something a while ago about Sun putting a whitepaper together on iSCSI vs. NFS performance when running virtual machines in VMware, is there an official document like that floating around anywhere?

    Cheers,
    Chris

  17. 2 Thanks to Duke:

    cookie_monster (14th May 2009), Hebdenlad (14th May 2009)

  18. #178


    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the server room, with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    4,715
    Thank Post
    288
    Thanked 788 Times in 615 Posts
    Rep Power
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke View Post
    Phil I think Andy mentioned something a while ago about Sun putting a whitepaper together on iSCSI vs. NFS performance when running virtual machines in VMware, is there an official document like that floating around anywhere?
    And if anyone at Sun was thinking of doing the same comparison under Citrix XenServer, it'd be appreciated.

  19. #179

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,601
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 771 Times in 599 Posts
    Rep Power
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by pete View Post
    And if anyone at Sun was thinking of doing the same comparison under Citrix XenServer, it'd be appreciated.
    I will be doing this very shortly

  20. 2 Thanks to Ric_:

    pete (14th May 2009), Soulfish (14th May 2009)

  21. #180
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,217
    Thank Post
    394
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    Ric_ are you currently connecting your Xen VMs to your SAN via NFS rather than iSCSI then?



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Sun Java Virtual machine
    By wesleyw in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18th May 2009, 03:58 PM
  2. Sun VirtualBox 2.1
    By tmcd35 in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19th December 2008, 01:05 PM
  3. Sun Ray
    By dan400007 in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 21st November 2007, 11:43 AM
  4. Sun Ray?
    By localzuk in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18th April 2007, 11:33 PM
  5. Sun Solaris
    By StewartKnight in forum *nix
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18th November 2005, 12:33 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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