KVM supports a variety of storage types, each catering to different performance and feature requirements. The Raw format is simple and offers high I/O performance but lacks advanced features like snapshots. QCOW2 is more feature-rich, supporting snapshots, compression, and encryption, though it has higher CPU overhead and slightly lower performance. LVM (Logical Volume Manager) offers good performance and easy resizing with thin provisioning, though it can be complex to manage. Network-based storage solutions like iSCSI and NFS provide scalability and shared access, with iSCSI offering block-level and NFS file-level access, both supporting live migration and snapshots. Distributed storage systems like Ceph and GlusterFS are highly scalable and fault-tolerant, ideal for large environments, but require significant setup. Finally, ZFS stands out for its advanced data integrity and management features, making it suitable for environments where robustness is crucial. Each of these storage types supports essential features like live migration and snapshots, enhancing KVM’s flexibility in various use cases.
| Storage Type | Advantages | Disadvantages | Live Migration Support | Snapshot Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | – Simple and straightforward format – Fast and efficient I/O performance | – Lacks advanced features – Larger disk space usage due to no compression | Yes | No |
| QCOW2 | – Supports advanced features (snapshots, compression, encryption) – Space-efficient with thin provisioning | – Slower I/O performance compared to raw – Higher CPU overhead due to features | Yes | Yes |
| LVM (Logical Volume Manager) | – Good performance – Thin provisioning support – Easy resizing | – More complex to set up and manage – Limited to physical server storage | Yes | Yes (with LVM snapshots) |
| iSCSI | – Allows sharing storage over a network – Scales well with growing storage needs | – Requires network infrastructure and management – Potential latency due to network | Yes | Yes (with LVM or filesystem snapshots) |
| NFS (Network File System) | – Easy to set up – Good for shared storage environments | – Potential network latency – Lower performance compared to block storage | Yes | Yes (depending on filesystem) |
| Ceph | – Highly scalable – Fault-tolerant with redundancy – Supports block, file, and object storage | – Complex to set up and manage – Higher resource requirements | Yes | Yes |
| GlusterFS | – Scalable – Good for large, distributed storage environments | – Complex to set up and manage – Performance can be variable | Yes | Yes |
| ZFS | – Advanced features like snapshots, replication, and compression – High data integrity | – High memory usage – Can be complex to manage | Yes | Yes |
Notes:
- Raw format is typically used where performance is critical and advanced features are not required.
- QCOW2 is widely used due to its balance between features and performance.
- LVM is beneficial for local storage management but is more complex than simple image files.
- iSCSI and NFS are network-based storage solutions, with iSCSI providing block-level access and NFS providing file-level access.
- Ceph and GlusterFS are distributed storage systems that offer high scalability and fault tolerance but require significant setup and management efforts.
- ZFS is known for its robustness and advanced data management features, suitable for environments where data integrity is critical.
This table should give you a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each KVM storage type, along with their support for live migration and snapshots.
If you want to discuss the topic with other technology-minded people, join my Discord: https://discord.gg/YbSYGsQYES
Now we have an IRC channel as well: irc.libera.chat / #tomsitcafe
Tom's IT Cafe 