|
xen-api
Re: [Xen-API] Alternative to Vastsky?
I see no problem with split brains in case of DRBD between two XCP hosts
(with DRBD between local drive in fist XCP host and second drive via
network on second XCP host). XCP assure there is no two copy of same VM
running in pool (we talking about XCP, not xend?). If some pool suddenly
go offline or disconnected (same thing), you must manually say
vm-reset-powerstate. I think this kind of protection is fairy normal,
except it will delay automatic restart in case of unexpected host hangup
- but in case of XCP this problem exists for every storage solution -
problem is not with storage but with XCP way to detects HOST_OFFLINE
(only after long delay XCP will assume host down... or never? I still
not test this well).
The main sad thing in DRBD is two host limit, but it still better, than
plain /dev/sd[abcde] for pack of 'mission critical applications with new
level of performance and effibla-bla-bla'. And (as far as I know XCP
internals) it have all capabilities (may be with little tweaking) to get
DRBD support at logic level. We have shared SR with two PBD on two
hosts. We calculate vm-vbd-vdi-sr-pbd-host paths before sending task to
slave (start/migrate/evacuate), we accounting them before returning
calculated ha-avability (forgot exact names). To avoid 'tripple
confilct' we allow only one DRBD per host: if A have two different DRBD
with B and C, B have same with C and A, and C with B and A and we create
vm with two vdi on fist and second DRBD volumes, we lost any way for
successful migration (and, in certain meaning, loose some redundancy).
Than you for reply about two iscsi target for same drbd... I have a
little doubts about data consistency due iscsi queue...
The last: I DO really wants to see 2.6.38+ in XCP. In 2.6.38 Red Hat has
add support for blkio-throttle in this version - most wanted feature for
dom0 - its allow to shape IOPS and bandwidth for every process
separately (this means 'for every VM'). We have (not very good, but
working) traffic shaper, so disk shaper is very actual too...
On 20.04.2011 04:09, Tim wrote:
On 19/04/11 23:21, George Shuklin wrote:
I think we shall split this to three different scenarios:
1) local storage redundancy of local storage within terms of single
host (e.g. software RAID support, I think this require a little tweak
of installer to create RAID1 instead plain /dev/sda installation)
This works quite well - I do it manually for each host after
installing. It would be less painful XCP could be upgraded using yum.
That way there wouldn't be a need to re-do it after each upgrade.
2) local storage redundancy within pool with limited host replication
(primary/primary DRBD between two XCP hosts, similar to current
/opt/xensource/packages/iso shared ISO SR)
I use this as a backing for an LVM storage repository. The only
problem I can foresee, is that I'm not sure if DRBD supports
multi-path. Network problems in a primary-primary setup would lead to
split-brain with different VMs running on different brains....... I
can't imagine that being fun to solve.... I'm using a crossover cable
and it seems to work well - very reliable but definitely not scalable.
3) Supports for external storage supports replication and clustering
and many other enterprise-level buzzwords.
Most interesting is third.
Right now I have plans to test iscsi over DRBD with muplipath to both
iscsi initiators (never test this, but it may be interesting),
alternative is corosync/pacemaker clustering for NFS/ISCSI + DRBD...
If I am understanding you correctly, I have tried this setup. Two
iSCSI targets kept in sync using DRBD, with multi-path between the
initiators and targets. This was replaced with the aforementioned
solution when the hosts were upgraded. It only required two servers as
opposed to four, no additional switches, there were fewer points of
failure overall, and it removed the processing overhead/latency caused
by the iSCSI layer.
I can imagine it would be of use in a situation where you had multiple
initiators, but it would then run the risk of being the bottleneck.
I also tried an active/passive DRBD pair with iSCSI/multi-path, with
fail-over managed by pacemaker/heartbeat. Write performance was
marginally better, but the problem was insuring that the fail-over
worked as planned.
On 20.04.2011 02:10, Tim Titley wrote:
Has anyone considered a replacement for the vastsky storage backend
now that the project is officially dead (at least for now)?
I have been looking at Ceph ( http://ceph.newdream.net/ ). A
suggestion to someone so inclined to do something about it, may be
to use the Rados block device (RBD) and put an LVM storage group on
it, which would require modification of the current LVM storage
manager code - I assume similar to LVMOISCSI.
This would provide scalable, redundant storage at what I assume
would be reasonable performance since the data can be striped across
many storage nodes.
Development seems reasonably active and although the project is not
officially production quality yet, it is part of the Linux kernel
which looks promising, as does the news that they will be providing
commercial support.
The only downside is that RBD requires a 2.6.37 kernel. For those
"in the know" - how long will it be before this kernel makes it to
XCP - considering that this vanilla kernel supposedly works in dom0
(I have yet to get it working)?
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Tim
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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