Re: LXC snapshot using overlayfs fsfreeze

[Tycho Andersen via Containers <containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Amir,

On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:35:01PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> [moving this discussion over from fsdevel to containers list and
> changing the title]
> 
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho-FCduhRhOUaTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:59:16PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho-FCduhRhOUaTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:47:52PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> >> > Would lxc-snapshot gain anything from the ability to fsfreeze an overlay
> >> >> > mount?
> >> >>
> >> >> lxc-snapshot only works on stopped containers.  'lxc snapshot' can do live
> >> >> snapshots using criu.  Tycho, does that do anything right now to freeze the
> >> >> fs?
> >> >
> >> > Not that I'm aware of (CRIU might, but we don't in liblxc).
> >> >
> >> >> I'm not sure that freezing all the tasks is necessarily enough to settle
> >> >> the fs, but I assume you're doing something about that already?
> >> >
> >> > I suspect it's not, but we're not doing anything besides freezing the
> >> > tasks. In fact, we freeze the tasks by using the freezer cgroup,
> >> > which itself is buggy, since the freezer cgroup can race with various
> >> > filesystems. So, freezing tasks is hard, and I haven't even thought
> >> > about how to freeze the fs for real :)
> >> >
> >> > But in any case, an fs freezing primitive does sound useful for
> >> > checkpoint restore, assuming that we're right and freezing the tasks
> >> > is simply not enough.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So I already asked Pavel that question and he said that freezing
> >> the tasks is enough. I am not convinced it is really enough to bring
> >> a file system image (i.e. underlying blockdev) to a quiescent state,
> >> but I think it may be enough for getting a stable view of the mounted
> >> file system, so the files could be dumped somewhere.
> >> I am guessing is what lxc snapshot does?
> >
> > Yes, lxc snapshot is basically just a frontend for CRIU.
> >
> >> I still didn't understand wrt lxc snapshot, is there a use case for
> >> taking live snapshots without using CRIU? (because freezer cgroup
> >> mentioned races or whatnot?).
> >
> > No, I think CRIU is the only project that will ever attempt to do
> > checkpoint restore this way ;-).
> 
> I don't doubt that.
> 
> My question is whether it is interesting to snapshot a live container fs
> without having to checkpoint not restore at all.
> 
> >  CRIU supports two different ways of
> > freezing tasks: one using the freezer cgroup and one without. The one
> > without doesn't work against fork bombs very well, and the one with
> > doesn't work because of some filesystems. So it's mostly a container
> > engine implementation choice which to use.
> >
> >> It's definitely possible with btrfs and if my overlayfs freeze patches
> >> are not terribly wrong, then it should be easy with overlayfs as well.
> >> Does lxc snapshot already support live snapshot of btrfs container?
> >
> > Yes, it does. It freezes the tasks via the cgroup freezer and then
> > does a btrfs snapshot of the filesystem once the tasks are frozen.
> >
> 
> So what I am not sure is if there are use cases where criu cannot be
> used or maybe there are reasons not to use it. and for these cases
> if it may be interesting to support snapshot of the storage by:
> - fsfreeze -f
> - copy upper dir
> - fsfreeze -u

I don't see a reason for it, but perhaps I'm not being very
imaginative. Without the memory state, the potentially inconsistent fs
state doesn't seem very helpful.

Cheers,

Tycho