[libvirt] rbd storage pool support for libvirt
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Thu Nov 18 10:42:14 UTC 2010
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:33:07PM -0800, Josh Durgin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 11/08/2010 05:16 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>>In any case, before someone goes off and implements something, does this
> >>>>look like the right general approach to adding rbd support to libvirt?
> >>>
> >>>I think this looks reasonable. I'd be inclined to get the storage pool
> >>>stuff working with the kernel RBD driver& UDEV rules for stable path
> >>>names, since that avoids needing to make any changes to guest XML
> >>>format. Support for QEMU with the native librados CEPH driver could
> >>>be added as a second patch.
> >>
> >>Okay, that sounds reasonable. Supporting the QEMU librados driver is
> >>definitely something we want to target, though, and seems to be route that
> >>more users are interested in. Is defining the XML syntax for a guest VM
> >>something we can discuss now as well?
> >>
> >>(BTW this is biting NBD users too. Presumably the guest VM XML should
> >>look similar?
> >
> >And also Sheepdog storage volumes. To define a syntax for all these we need
> >to determine what configuration metadata is required at a per-VM level for
> >each of them. Then try and decide how to represent that in the guest XML.
> >It looks like at a VM level we'd need a hostname, port number and a volume
> >name (or path).
>
> It looks like that's what Sheepdog needs from the patch that was
> submitted earlier today. For RBD, we would want to allow multiple hosts,
> and specify the pool and image name when the QEMU librados driver is
> used, e.g.:
>
> <disk type="rbd" device="disk">
> <driver name="qemu" type="raw" />
> <source vdi="image_name" pool="pool_name">
> <host name="mon1.example.org" port="6000">
> <host name="mon2.example.org" port="6000">
> <host name="mon3.example.org" port="6000">
> </source>
> <target dev="vda" bus="virtio" />
> </disk>
>
> Does this seem like a reasonable format for the VM XML? Any suggestions?
I'm basically wondering whether we should be going for separate types for
each of NBD, RBD & Sheepdog, as per your proposal & the sheepdog one earlier
today. Or type to merge them into one type 'nework' which covers any kind of
network block device, and list a protocol on the source element, eg
<disk type="network" device="disk">
<driver name="qemu" type="raw" />
<source protocol='rbd|sheepdog|nbd' name="...some image identifier...">
<host name="mon1.example.org" port="6000">
<host name="mon2.example.org" port="6000">
<host name="mon3.example.org" port="6000">
</source>
<target dev="vda" bus="virtio" />
</disk>
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list