Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
> I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry. > > DRBD isn't much slower than the native disk performance, provided your > network is fast enough. So the question is less about DRBD's performance > as it is about the performance you need from the storage. If a standard > SATA drive's performance is fine, then it's all you need. I followed the discussion about switch or no switch. But I'm still stuck with my questions... For use with KVM with automatic failover I need a primary/primary setup, so AFAIK protocol C is required. According to my benchmarks DRBD is much slower in that setup than native HDD performance and changing the Network-Setup from 1GBit direct link to 2 bonded interfaces doesn't increase speed. As we've just space for one 3.5" HDD (the other bay is used by the Boot-SSD) I'm unable to install a raid5-setup. So I think about installing two SSDs per Server using a 2x2.5" to 1x3.5" adapter and leaving 20% of each ssd's space unpartitioned because of the lack of TRIM support. Then I would create 2 DRBD devices, to store the KVM-Images onto. Moneywise this is not cheap but ok with our budget. What do the experts think: Should this be sufficient to get the perfomance of a single SATA-Disk without DRBD? regards Lukas -- -------------------------- software security networks Lukas Gradl <proxmox#ssn.at> Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 6 A - 6020 Innsbruck Tel: +43-512-214040-0 Fax: +43-512-214040-21 --------------------------