Comments on: Hands off that CSV!

By: tonyr

tonyr — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:34:21 +0000

Paul, yep the netapp stuff is cool have you looked at their DR stuff for hyper-v r2

By: Paul Shearer

Paul Shearer — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:04:42 +0000

To Fernando: We are a Fortune 500 and we are running HyperV R2 using CSVs. As for the backup and replication questions we leverage NETAPP (one of our SAN providers.) They have a HyperV Snapshot client that allows the CSV (VOLUME in NetAPP speak) to be placed in a consistent state for backup. This is even better than a host based backup as its all happening between our SAN and Backup infastructure.

By: » CSV Ordinary Mind

» CSV Ordinary Mind — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:27:49 +0000

[...] Hands off CSV – the comments are entertaining! under: virtualisation Tags: csv, file system « 朱校長在科大 [...]

By: Hyper-V CSV volumes must be monitored by a complex GUID instead of drive letter | VCritical

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:06:31 +0000

[...] Know™ formerly assigned letters of the alphabet to storage volumes. With the introduction of Cluster Shared Volumes (CSV), drive letters are no longer used — relying instead on a 128-bit globally unique [...]

By: The hypervisor is not running - Hypervisor.fr

The hypervisor is not running - Hypervisor.fr — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:38:48 +0000

[...] fois le cluster OK, on passe à la création du CSV (qui n’est pas au gout de tout le monde), suivi par la création de la VM. Il faut savoir que les volumes CSV sont accessibles via des [...]

By: Configuration of Hyper-V Live Migration – RUN DMC Style | VM /ETC

Configuration of Hyper-V Live Migration – RUN DMC Style | VM /ETC — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:20:18 +0000

[...] light of other bloggers Raising Hell with clustered file system discussions in the V12N blogisphere recently, This [...]

By: canalha

canalha — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:37:29 +0000

Guys: get over it, please. I think it stopped being productive several posts ago.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:14:36 +0000

Elden,

For the “VMFS does not scale” FUD (which you are not the only one to manifest), I found a very good clarification here:

http://virtualgeek.typepad.com/virtual_geek/2009/03/vmfs-best-practices-and-counter-fud.html

Take a look at it.

Does MS provides any documentation on CSV limits ?

By: Fernando

Fernando — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:16:22 +0000

“CSV was designed specifically for Hyper-V, so your bold statements are quite false”

NTFS was not make specifically for it. Of course CSV has !

“VMware cannot, and has never been able to do this”
And VMware does not need it. VMware SRM handles DR perfectly, without the need to have a multi-site cluster.

“I would love for you to explain to me how VMFS enables simultaneous access for all nodes to read-only replica’s in DR sites that makes their solution superior?”

SRM integrates directly to the storage system (IBM, EMC, HP, NetApp, etc ), and present the LUNs on the failover site when needed. No need to present a read only LUN. Much elegant way of handling this, and way superior than Hyper-V. This is the result of a focused product for DR, not a general propose cluster solution, adapted to Hyper-V. Can you make a complete DR testing without touching the original VMs with multi-site Cluster ?

For the SCSI looking stuff. What you says if FUD.

CSV is a version 1.0 product, completely unproven, and you are arguing that it does scale better than VMFS, which is a 10 years development, proved everyday over and over by 98% of fortune 1000 companies !!! Wake up , get real !

Just look at VMware documentation on how VMFS scaled. Where is MS documents on this ? Where are real user scenarios ? There are none, since this is a new/unproven product.

By: Elden

Elden — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:54:16 +0000

Hi Fernando,

I’m not quite sure what you mean… CSV was designed specifically for Hyper-V, so your bold statements are quite false. Additionally, this has zero relevance on any naïve assumptions on the functionality of the solution… I would love for you to articulate how VMFS’s SCSI reserve locking mechanism which completely limits it’s scalability is better than CSV? Or how VMFS’s file locking for split brain handling is better than our quorum arbitration?

Side note: The correct terminology is a multi-site cluster, GeoCluster is a solution from Doubletake.

Also, I’m a little confused… Failover Clustering is the only solution that allows nodes in the same cluster to be stretched across sites to achieve automatic DR recovery. Yes, we are actively working with replication vendors to sort out architectural considerations as Failover Clustering moves from a shared nothing to a distributed model. VMware cannot, and has never been able to do this. So can you help me understand how you are holding up some interoperability work being done on our side, which VMware can NOT do… as making VMware better? I’m quite perplexed on the foundation of your argument.

Also, I would love for you to explain to me how VMFS enables simultaneous access for all nodes to read-only replica’s in DR sites that makes their solution superior?