|
xen-api
RE: [Xen-API] cross-pool migrate, with any kind of storage (shared or lo
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think I'll add a wiki page later to describe the
DRBD-based design idea and we can list some pros and cons of each perhaps.
I'm still not a DRBD expert but I've now read the manual and configured it a
few times (where 'few' = 'about 3') :)
Daniel wrote:
> If only FS integrity matters, you can run a coarser series of updates,
> for asynchronous mirroring. I suspect DRBD to do at least sth like that
> (I'm not a DRBD expert either). I'm not sure if the asynchronous mode I
> see on the feature list allows for conclusions on DRBD's idea of HA in
> any way. It may just limit HA to being synchronous mode. Does anyone
> know?
It seems that DRBD can operate in 3 different synchronization modes:
1. fully synchronous: writes are ACK'ed only when written to both disks
2. asynchronous: writes are ACK'ed when written to the primary disk (data is
somewhere in-flight to the secondary)
3. semi-synchronous: writes are ACK'ed when written to the primary disk and in
the memory (not disk) of the secondary
Apparently most people run it in fully synchronous mode over a fast LAN.
Provided we could get DRBD to flush outstanding updates and guarantee that the
two block devices are identical during the migration downtime when the domain
is shutdown, I guess we could use any of these methods. Although if fully
synchronous is the most common option, we may want to stick with that?
> Anyway, it's not exactly a rainy weekend project, so if you want
> consistent mirroring, there doesn't seem to be anything better than
> DRBD
> around the corner.
It did rain this weekend :) So I've half-written a python module for
configuring and controlling DRBD:
https://github.com/djs55/drbd-manager
It'll be interesting to see how this performs in practice. For some realistic
workloads I'd quite like to measure
1. total migration time
2. total migration downtime
3. ... effect on the guest during migration (somehow)
For (3) I would expect that continuous replication would slow down guest I/O
more during the migrate than explicit snapshot/copy (as if every I/O performed
a "mini snapshot/copy") but it would probably improve the downtime (2), since
there would be no final disk copy.
What would you recommend for workloads / measurements?
> In summary, my point is that it's probably better to focus on migration
> only - it's one flat dirty log index and works in-situ at the block
> level. Beyond, I think it's perfectly legal to implement mirroring
> independently -- the math is very similar, but the difference make for
> huge impact on performance, I/O overhead, space to be set aside, and
> robustness.
Thanks,
Dave
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> [PS: comments/corrections welcome, indeed].
>
> > 3. use the VM metadata export/import to move the VM metadata between
> pools
> >
> > I'd also like to
> > * make the migration code unit-testable (so I can test the failure
> paths easily)
> > * make the code more robust to host failures by host heartbeating
> > * make migrate properly cancellable
> >
> > I've started making a prototype-- so far I've written a simple python
> wrapper around the iscsi target daemon:
> >
> > https://github.com/djs55/iscsi-target-manager
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xen-api mailing list
> > xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
>
_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
|
|
|
Home