Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [patch 2/3] Add support for live block copy

[Avi Kivity]

On 02/28/2011 08:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2011 11:47 AM, "Avi Kivity" <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/28/2011 07:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You're just ignoring what I've written.
> >>
> >> No, you're just impervious to my subtle attempt to refocus the 
> discussion on solving a practical problem.
> >>
> >> There's a lot of good, reasonably straight forward changes we can 
> make that have a high return on investment.
> >>
> >
> > Is making qemu the authoritative source of configuration information 
> a straightforward change?  Is the return on it high?  Is the 
> investment low?
>
> I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.  My position is that 
> QEMU is already the authoritative source.  Having a state file doesn't 
> change anything.
>
> Do a hot unplug of a network device with upstream libvirt with acpiphp 
> unloaded, consult libvirt and then consult the monitor to see who has 
> the right view of the guests config.

libvirt is right and the monitor is wrong.

On real hardware, calling _EJ0 doesn't affect the configuration one 
little bit (if I understand it correctly).  It just turns off power to 
the slot.  If you power-cycle, the card will be there.

In the real world, the authoritative source of configuration is a human 
with a screwdriver.  The virtualized equivalent is the management tool.

> To me, that's the definition of authoritative.
>
> > "No" to all three (ignoring for the moment whether it is good or 
> not, which we were debating).
> >
> >
> >> The only suggestion I'm making beyond Marcelo's original patch is 
> that we use a structured format and that we make it possible to use 
> the same file to solve this problem in multiple places.
> >>
> >
> > No, you're suggesting a lot more than that.
>
> That's exactly what I'm suggesting from a technical perspective.

Unless I'm hallucinating, you're suggesting quite a bit more.  A 
revolution in how qemu is to be managed.

> >> I don't think this creates a fundamental break in how management 
> tools interact with QEMU.  I don't think introducing RAID support in 
> the block layer is a reasonable alternative.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because its a lot of complexity and code that can go wrong while only 
> solving the race for one specific case.  Not to mention that we double 
> the iop rate.

IMO it's of similar complexity.  The number of I/Os don't change (reads 
stay the same, and any write that has already been mirrored needs to be 
re-mirrored in both cases.  We do gain lower latency switchover and we 
package the code as a block format driver instead of core block code.  
We decouple the dependencies from live migration.

> > Something that avoids the whole state thing altogether:
> >
> > - instead of atomically switching when live copy is done, keep on 
> issuing writes to both the origin and the live copy
> > - issue a notification to management
> > - management receives the notification, and issues an atomic 
> blockdev switch command
>
> > this is really the RAID-1 solution but without the state file 
> (credit Dor).  An advantage is that there is no additional latency 
> when trying to catch up to the dirty bitmap.
>
> It still suffers from the two generals problem.  You cannot solve this 
> without making one node reliable and that takes us back to it being 
> either QEMU (posted event and state file) or the management tool (sync 
> event).

It works without either.  If qemu fails, you simply re-mirror 
everything.  If the management tool fails, it re-subscribes to the 
mirror-complete event, queries whether it already happened in its 
absence, and if it did, requests the switchover.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function