Difference between revisions of "CT storage backends"

From OpenVZ Virtuozzo Containers Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reorganization, deduplication, +LVM +ZFS)
(return back row with 'Shared storage support', merge three tables to single table)
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{stub}}
 
{{stub}}
 
<translate>
 
<translate>
= Comparison tables =
 
  
=== Solidity in front of failures and security ===
+
= Comparison table =
 +
 
 
<!--T:1-->
 
<!--T:1-->
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
 +
|-
 
! Feature
 
! Feature
 
! OVZ Ploop
 
! OVZ Ploop
 
! OVZ SimFS (ext4)
 
! OVZ SimFS (ext4)
 
! LVM (ext4)
 
! LVM (ext4)
! ZFS (~simfs)
+
! ZFS
 +
|-
 +
!colspan="11" style="font-style:bold;background-color:gold;"|1. Solidity in front of failures and security
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''I/O isolation'''
 
|'''I/O isolation'''
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
|{{No|Bad}}: Some bug could be exploited to escape CT and access HN file system}}: [https://bugs.openvz.org/browse/OVZ-6296 CVE-2015-2925], [http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/06/24/16 CVE-2014-3519]
+
|{{No|Bad}}: Possibility of "no inodes" issues (when file system journal become a bottleneck).
 +
|{{Yes|Good}}
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
 +
|-
 +
|'''Security'''
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
 
|{{Yes|Good}}
 +
|{{No|Bad}}: Some bug could be exploited to escape CT and access HN file system <ref>[https://bugs.openvz.org/browse/OVZ-6296 CVE-2015-2925]</ref> <ref>[http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/06/24/16 CVE-2014-3519]</ref>
 +
|
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Reliability'''
 
|'''Reliability'''
Line 24: Line 33:
 
|{{Yes|Excellent}}: no write hole, checksumming and COW
 
|{{Yes|Excellent}}: no write hole, checksumming and COW
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Risk to be using filesystem over filesystem'''
+
|'''Filesystem over filesystem'''
|{{No|Yes}}
+
|Yes
|{{Yes|No}}
+
|No
|{{Yes|No}}
+
|No
 
|?
 
|?
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Effect of HN filesystem corruption at /vz'''
 
|'''Effect of HN filesystem corruption at /vz'''
|{{Yes|No effect}}
+
|{{Yes|No corruption}}
|{{No|Same FS}}
+
|{{No|Possible corruption}}
 
|?
 
|?
 
|?
 
|?
Line 42: Line 51:
 
|{{No|Since 2014}}
 
|{{No|Since 2014}}
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Incremental backup support on filesystem level'''
+
!colspan="11" style="font-style:bold;background-color:gold;"|2. Performance and design features
|{{Yes}}, through snapshots
 
|{{No}}
 
|{{No}}
 
|{{Yes}}
 
|-
 
|}
 
 
 
=== Performance and design features ===
 
<!--T:1-->
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
 
! Feature
 
! OVZ Ploop
 
! OVZ SimFS (ext4)
 
! LVM (ext4)
 
! ZFS (~simfs)
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Maximum container volume space'''
 
|'''Maximum container volume space'''
 
|4 TiB <ref>[[Ploop/Limits]]</ref>
 
|4 TiB <ref>[[Ploop/Limits]]</ref>
|1 EiB
+
|1 EiB <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4 Ext4]</ref>
|1 EiB
+
|?
 
|256 ZiB
 
|256 ZiB
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Wasted space due to architecture'''
+
|'''Disk space overhead'''
|{{No|up to 20%}}
+
|Up to 20%
|{{Yes|No}}
+
|No
|{{No|up to 20%}}
+
|Up to 20%
 
|?
 
|?
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Disk i/o speed'''
+
|'''Disk I/O speed'''
|Fast in any case
+
|Fast
|Very fast with small amount of containers
+
|Fast only with small amount of containers per node, slowdown in case of big number of small files.
|Fast in any case
+
|Fast
|Fast in any case
+
|Fast
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Disk space overcommit (provide more space for containers than available on server now)'''
 
|'''Disk space overcommit (provide more space for containers than available on server now)'''
Line 101: Line 95:
 
|No
 
|No
 
|-
 
|-
|}
+
|'''Incremental backup support on filesystem level'''
 
+
|{{Yes}}, through snapshots
=== Administrator operations ===
+
|{{No}}
<!--T:1-->
+
|{{No}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
+
|{{Yes}}
! Feature
+
|-
! OVZ Ploop
+
|'''Shared storage support (Virtuozzo storage, NFS)'''
! OVZ SimFS (ext4)
+
|{{Yes|Yes}}
! LVM (ext4)
+
|{{No|No}}
! ZFS (~simfs)
+
|{{Yes|Yes}}
 +
|?
 +
|-
 +
!colspan="11" style="font-style:bold;background-color:gold;"|3. Maintenance
 +
|-
 +
|'''vzctl integration'''
 +
|{{Yes|Complete}}
 +
|{{Yes|Complete}}
 +
|{{No}}, many manual operations
 +
|{{No}}, some manual operations
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''External compaction for container volumes'''
 
|'''External compaction for container volumes'''
Line 125: Line 128:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Live backup'''
 
|'''Live backup'''
|{{Yes|Easy, fast and consistent}}<ref name="ploop backup">[http://openvz.livejournal.com/44508.html ploop snapshots and backups]</ref><ref>[[Ploop/Backup]]</ref>
+
|{{Yes|Easy, fast and consistent}}<ref>[http://openvz.livejournal.com/44508.html ploop snapshots and backups]</ref> <ref>[[Ploop/Backup]]</ref>
 
|{{No|Easy, slow, and sometimes inconsistent}} in case some application depends on inode IDs
 
|{{No|Easy, slow, and sometimes inconsistent}} in case some application depends on inode IDs
 
|{{No|Fast}}
 
|{{No|Fast}}
Line 131: Line 134:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Snapshot support'''
 
|'''Snapshot support'''
|{{Yes}}<ref name="ploop backup">[http://openvz.livejournal.com/44508.html ploop snapshots and backups]</ref>
+
|{{Yes}}<ref>[http://openvz.livejournal.com/44508.html ploop snapshots and backups]</ref>
 
|{{No}} theoretically, because of much/small files to be copied
 
|{{No}} theoretically, because of much/small files to be copied
 
|{{Yes}}
 
|{{Yes}}

Revision as of 11:09, 7 June 2016

<translate>

Comparison table

Feature OVZ Ploop OVZ SimFS (ext4) LVM (ext4) ZFS
1. Solidity in front of failures and security
I/O isolation Good Bad: Possibility of "no inodes" issues (when file system journal become a bottleneck). Good Good
Security Good Bad: Some bug could be exploited to escape CT and access HN file system [1] [2]
Reliability Low: big amount of files produce ext4 corruption so often Medium: fsck, power loss and HW Raid without cache can kill whole data High: LVM metadata can be corrupted completely Excellent: no write hole, checksumming and COW
Filesystem over filesystem Yes No No ?
Effect of HN filesystem corruption at /vz No corruption Possible corruption ? ?
Maturity in O/VZ Since 2012 Since ~2005 Since 1998 Since 2014
2. Performance and design features
Maximum container volume space 4 TiB [3] 1 EiB [4] ? 256 ZiB
Disk space overhead Up to 20% No Up to 20% ?
Disk I/O speed Fast Fast only with small amount of containers per node, slowdown in case of big number of small files. Fast Fast
Disk space overcommit (provide more space for containers than available on server now) Yes Yes No Yes
Different containers may use file systems of different types and properties Yes No Yes No
Second level quotes in Linux (inside container) Yes Yes Yes Not implemented
Potential support for QCOW2 and other image formats Yes No No No
Incremental backup support on filesystem level Yes, through snapshots No No Yes
Shared storage support (Virtuozzo storage, NFS) Yes No Yes ?
3. Maintenance
vzctl integration Complete Complete No, many manual operations No, some manual operations
External compaction for container volumes Needed for saving HN space No Not available Not required
Access to private area from host Yes Yes ? ?
Live backup Easy, fast and consistent[5] [6] Easy, slow, and sometimes inconsistent in case some application depends on inode IDs Fast Fast theoretically
Snapshot support Yes[7] No theoretically, because of much/small files to be copied Yes Yes
Live migration Reliable and fast Not reliable and slow, if some application depends on inode IDs Not implemented Fast theoretically
Continue failed CT migration Yes, in vzctl from OpenVZ -stable Yes, option "--keep-dst" Not implemented ?

</translate>