On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:00 AM, John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> We don't anticipate a need for this.
>>>>
>>>>> 4. There's no VxHS Storage Pool support in this patch (OK actually an
>>>>> additional set of patches in order to support). That would be expected
>>>>> especially for a networked storage environment. You'll note there are
>>>>> src/storage/storage_backend_{iscsi|gluster|rbd}.{c|h} files that manage
>>>>> iSCSI, Gluster, and RBD protocol specific things. For starters, create,
>>>>> delete, and refresh - especially things that a stat() wouldn't
>>>>> necessarily return (capacity, allocation, type a/k/a target.format).
>>>>> Perhaps even the ability to upload/download and wipe volumes in the
>>>>> pool. Having a pool is a bit more work, but look at the genesis of
>>>>> existing storage_backend_*.c files to get a sense for what needs to change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VxHS does not need the Storage Pool functionality. Do we still need to
>>>> implement this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's something that's expected. See my reasoning above.
>>>
>>
>> Some explanation is in order -
>>
>> HyperScale is not designed to be used as a stand-alone independent
>> storage. It is designed only to be used in the OpenStack environment
>> with all the related Cinder/Nova changes in place. Therefore, we do
>> not have a need for most of the above-mentioned functions from
>> libvirt/qemu.
>>
>> Even in the OpenStack environment, we do not support creating storage
>> volumes independent of a guest VM. A VxHS storage volume can only be
>> created for a particular guest VM. With this scheme, a user does not
>> have to manage storage pools separately. VxHS automatically configures
>> and consumes the direct attached SSD/HDD on the OpenStack compute when
>> enabled. After this, all the requests to add storage to guest VMs are
>> forwarded by OpenStack directly to the hyperscale daemon on the
>> compute, and it takes care of creating the underlying storage etc.
>
> And how does that volume creation occur? It would seem that there's some
> command that does that. That's "independent" of libvirt, so in order for
> a guest to use that storage - it'd need to be created first anyway. I
> then assume as part of guest vm destruction you must somehow destroy the
> volume too. Synchronizing with creation and ensuring deletion would seem
> to be fairly important tasks and would seemingly be something you'd like
> to have more integrated with the environment.
>
We have hooks in nova that trap volume creation/deletion request. Then
we send messages to our service running on every compute to carry out
the necessary steps to create/delete the volume.
> So what about hotplug? Can someone add in VxHS storage to a guest after
> it's started?
>
Yes, we do support hot-plugging. We use OpenStack nova framework to
generate a config for the new volume and attach_device it to a running
guest.
> And migration? Can the guest be migrated? I haven't crawled through
> that code recently, but I know there'd be changes to either allow or not
> based on the storage type.
>
We do support storage migration. We simulate shared storage on top of
direct-attached storage, therefore libvirt/qemu can assume shared
storage for the purpose of migration.
>>
>> The role of libvirt is limited to opening the volume specified in the
>> guest XML file. Volume creation, deletion etc is done by the VxHS
>> daemon in response to messages from the OpenStack controller. Our
>> OpenStack orchestration code (Nova) is responsible for updating the
>> guest XML with correct volume information for libvirt to use. A
>> regular user (libvirt) is not expected to know about what volume IDs
>> exist on any given host. A regular user also does not have a volume
>> device node on the local compute to query. The only way to get to a
>> volume is via the network using the server IP-port address.
>>
>>
>
> For me having the storage pool is a more complete solution. You don't
> have to support all the storage backend volume functions (build, create,
> upload, download, wipe, resize, etc.), but knowing what volumes exist
> and can be used for a domain is nice. It's also nice to know how much
> storage exists (allocation, capacity, physical). It also allows a single
> point of authentication - the pool authenticates at startup (see the
> iSCSI and RBD code) and then the domains can use storage from the pool.
>
> From a guest view point, rather than having to provide:
>
> <source protocol='vxhs' name='eb90327c-8302-4725-9e1b-4e85ed4dc251'>
> <host name='192.168.0.1' port='9999'/>
> </source>
> <auth username='user'>
> <secret type='vxfs' usage='somestring'/>
> </auth>
>
> you'd have:
>
> <source pool='pool-name' volume='vol-name'/>
>
> The "host" and "auth" would be part of the <pool> definition. Having to
> discover the available 'names' ends up being the difference it seems for
> vxhs since your model would seem to be create storage, create/start
> guest, destroy guest, destroy storage. I think there's value in being
> able to use the libvirt storage API's especially w/r/t integrating the
> volume and guest management.
>
Would it be OK to consider adding storage pool functionality to vxhs
after Nova starts using it?
> John
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
