What's the difference between GlusterFS and Gluster virtual appliance?
I am not sure how to apply Gluster for virtual machine environments, and find there are two application scenario from some slides., as shown in the following figure 1 and 2.
In Figure 1, it looks like GlusterFS is under Hypervisor and provide a unified file system for VMs.
In Figure 2, it looks like virtual storage appliance itself be a VM instance.
These two application scenarios seems both provide redundancy for VM. What's the difference of these?
If I just want to have redundancy for virtual machine image, is that scenario 1 is enough?
Figure 1
Figure 2
In Figure 1, it looks like GlusterFS is under Hypervisor and provide a unified file system for VMs.
In Figure 2, it looks like virtual storage appliance itself be a VM instance.
These two application scenarios seems both provide redundancy for VM. What's the difference of these?
If I just want to have redundancy for virtual machine image, is that scenario 1 is enough?
Figure 1
Figure 2
-
zkongcn
- •
You can do both. In the context of Amazon, you run the GlusterFS on an EC2 instance, and you can add EBS bricks to the storage pool. The Virtual Storage Appliance gives you an easier way to do this, but you can set it up manually.
For on-premise deployments, you can use GlusterFS on the hypervisor as the storage backend for your VM images, although we recommend you not do that until we release 3.3 (in a few months).
For on-premise deployments, you can use GlusterFS on the hypervisor as the storage backend for your VM images, although we recommend you not do that until we release 3.3 (in a few months).
