From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [libvirt] rbd storage pool support for libvirt Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:42:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20101118104214.GW15851@redhat.com> References: <20101103135900.GQ29893@redhat.com> <20101108131634.GJ26714@redhat.com> <4CE47443.4000503@hq.newdream.net> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51804 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756376Ab0KRKmW (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:42:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CE47443.4000503@hq.newdream.net> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Josh Durgin Cc: Sage Weil , libvir-list@redhat.com, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 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.: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 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 :|