Hi,
I'm trying to build an active/active virtualization cluster using a Ceph RBD as backing for each libvirt-managed LXC. I know live migration for LXC isn't yet possible, but I'd like to build my infrastructure as if it were. That is, I would like to be sure proper locking is in place for live migrations to someday take place. In other words, I'm building things as if I were using KVM and live migration via libvirt. I've been looking at corosync, pacemaker, virtlock, sanlock, gfs2, ocfs2, glusterfs, cephfs, ceph RBD and other solutions. I admit that I'm quite confused. If oVirt, with its embedded GlusterFS and its planned self-hosted engine option, supported LXC, I'd use that. However the stars have not yet aligned for that.
It seems that the most elegant and scalable approach may be to utilize Ceph's RBD with its native locking mechanism plus corosync and pacemaker for fencing, for a number of reasons out of scope for this email.
My question now is in regards to proper locking. Please see the following links. The libvirt hook looks good, but is there any expectation that this arrangement will become a patch to libvirt itself, as is suggested by the second link?
http://www.wogri.at/en/linux/ceph-libvirt-locking/
http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-August/003887.html
http://www.wogri.at/en/linux/ceph-libvirt-locking/
http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-August/003887.html
Can anyone guide me on how to theoretically build a very "lock" safe 5-node active-active KVM cluster atop Ceph RBD? Must I use sanlock with its NFS or GFS2 with its performance bottlenecks? Does your answer work for LXC (sans the current state of live migration)?
Thanks,
Joshua
--
Joshua
--
Joshua Dotson
Founder, Wrale Ltd
Founder, Wrale Ltd
_______________________________________________ libvirt-users mailing list libvirt-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
