[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-API] One resource pool and local lvm SR mirrored using DRBD
- To: xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Jakob Praher <jakob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:26:26 +0200
- Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:27:13 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=praher.info; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id :x-virus-scanned; s=dkim; t=1313403991; x=1314267991; bh=4youwcy IV+eHbaLTJhwqtORa83bFt/dF457DdX3U28Q=; b=aWImpi93whYkLUvHEkkLEvm DBwHj3fbr1+HnEqjWJVTRU0q/OMSfIi5TFN2FYHoPV/HoHLFEjS1LVk7fx3cL7KX TNws6ZzXuofUSYzIWWpjsT1X+cVzSBbd3l1owZVgsZvr76rRqZENbC3O1ZnDpazS EDuckX/sSU+BlO/PchBE=
- List-id: Discussion of API issues surrounding Xen <xen-api.lists.xensource.com>
thanks for the quick reply. As I already said CrossPool Migration is not
an option - but at least the wiki discusses a setup that mirrors via DRBD.
I am new to Xen-API yet we are using Xen hypervisor on Debian for half a
decade. So the basic underlying stuff is known to us, yet all the
concepts like SR, VDI, VHD, ... (which are also needed to abstract from
the physical representation) is new.
How does this DRBD-backed ISCSI look like?
You export the DRBD block device via ISCSI protocol? Multipath means
that you can do active/active?
What is the network overhead when using this scenario to local LVM?
Is this the preferred scenario for HA on individual hosts having local
Can this be enabled in XCP 1.1?
Regarding FT: Yes our scenario is FT since we use the SR locally. But we
would definitely like to setup a HA infrastructure since then the
decision on which machine the VM should be placed does not have to be
done at vm-install time, but can be dynamically balanced and also
xenmotion and all that stuff woul work.
One of our goals is that we do not want to reinvent something.
Am 15.08.11 11:57, schrieb George Shuklin:
> Right now we running last tests before product deployment of
> DRBD-backed iscsi target with multipath. I found no specific problem
> at this moment (except the need to patching ISCSISR.py for complete
> multipath support). But I don' understand, why you need to do
> cross-pool migration for FT. In any way you can not achive FT with
> current XCP state, only HA.
> The difference between FT and HA: If server broken, FT-machine
> continue to run without any traces of fault, in case of HA machine
> just (almost instantly) restarting on other available hosts in the
> pool. FT is not magic key, because if VM do some bad thing (crashed)
> HA restart it, and FT will do nothing.
> On 15.08.2011 13:38, Jakob Praher wrote:
>> Dear List,
>> I have a question regarding a fault-tolerant setup of XCP.
>> We have two hosts that are in one resource pool.
>> Furthermore we are trying to make two SRs (storage repos) as local lvm
>> volume groups where one volume group is active (owned) by one server,
>> and the other volume group is active on the other server.
>> In case of failure because of the common resource pool all the meta
>> information concerning VMs are still available. After degrading the
>> system to one host the SR is still owned by the failed server. Is there
>> an easy way to migrate the SR? Is anybody using a similar solution or
>> what are your best practices?
>> I think CrossPool-Migration is not an option for us since we want to
>> keep only one resource pool for both servers.
>> Another question: I am currently using 1.1 of XCP - what is the best way
>> to compile system (like DRBD) RPMs for this version. Since the DDK is
>> not available I also have troubles getting the XCP distribition
>> installed into a guest VM so that I can add development packages to it
>> and compile the package there. Is there a base image that I can use so
>> that I have the right devel rpms? From yum repos.d I see that it is a
>> CentOS 5.
>> Any help is appreaciated.
>> xen-api mailing list
> xen-api mailing list
xen-api mailing list