New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Thin provisioning in SolusVM - Priority?
Asking about thin provisioning support for KVM in SolusVM, I've got:
We added the Thin provisioning in KVM request into our Feature request track already, Our development team will consider this as per the Priority.
From 0 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority), what would be your priority level?
Just to know if this is important for other SolusVM customers or not...
Regards!
Thanked by 1tgeroff
Comments
Nothing would be a priority for SolusVM apart from Money.
Not important to me, would be nice to have but honestly there are way more important things than the ability to oversell disk space.
For context I believe that the ability to have remote storage options and network attached storage took priority over thin provisioning which actually if you understand LVM you can do yourself anyway SolusVM will not be aware.
This has been available since CentOS 6.4 (ish) but not well publicized so its not a big surprise it did not make it to the radar sooner and with any priority.
I asked about this at the beginning of last April, they said,
It was only available after 6.4 witch was released late May last year and even then this was not mentioned specifically in the release notes so if you asked a month before it is not surprising all they could give is a vague answer?
April as in last month. Wasn't complaining about vagueness either, just adding another confirmation to the thread. I took the "for sure" as enthusiasm on their part.
Sorry that confused me but ok.
So, in that global cloud everybody renting from everybody global access thingy, will customers see how thin provisioned the service is they are getting. ?
I think you are talking about LVM thin provisioning which was first introduced in RHEL/CentOS 6.4 but SolusVM could always implement thin provisioning by supporting other storage types such as RAW or QCOW2.
Fair point, however that would be significantly more work I would imagine, not in isolation but in terms of integration with the current panel back end, maybe not but either way you make a good point I was thinking LVM.
Virtualizor have recently added support for thin LVM, QCOW2 & RAW. If they have done it successfully, I don't know why SolusVM couldn't. Currently SolusVM alternatives like Virtualizor & Proxmox are well ahead of them in terms of features according to present needs of the market.
Yep that is true, lets see what the long awaited version 2 brings.
Honestly, I'd assign it a low priority, simply for the fact that many hosts are uneducated and unlikely to read warnings such as "IF THIS DISK FILLS UP, YOU LOSE ALL DATA" and somesuch (lvm thin provisioning for you :P)
It depends a lot of companies do it on a per basis like how many people want it. Aka Blesta, we do it on our modules for automatic provisioning too.
How can you say that? Every company wants money but development time has to be done by priority, they are doing SolusVM2, they have been fixing bugs... Feature Requests don't come as a high priority unless people will be dying without the feature.
Do not expect SAN or any of the other cloud features as they obviously do not want solus to compete with onapp. If @virtualizor can implement SAN with better backup & migration system then I think this could be last nail in the coffin for solus which is nothing but an outdated crap piece of software with poor support. So if virtualizor implement those cloud features which they are not willing to do for solus then onapp ltd will either have to implement them in solus as well or solus will become history. Till today all they have done is promise promise promise and deliver nothing. And when asked about their achievements in a public forum all they can come up with is that they are backed up by a larger UK/US limited company:
http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/905511/#Comment_905511
if you need panel to do thin provisioning, then i can tell you right away that thin provisioning is not right thing for you. It requires constant monitoring and meta backups for almost every non vanilla kernel. If you ask me it is not production ready.
I have had trouble during testing with thin lvm as it is not really stable yet but qcow2 & raw have always performed well for me as they are pretty stable.
Maybe this sort of question is best suited to end users of the virtual servers? would they want it?