[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] Add colo-proxy based on netfilter

From: Jason Wang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] Add colo-proxy based on netfilter
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:20:08 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0

On 01/05/2016 12:52 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Jason Wang (address@hidden) wrote:
>> On 01/04/2016 04:16 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2016 01:37 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2015 04:40 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2015 10:36 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/2015 06:42 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> From: zhangchen <address@hidden>
>>>>>>> Hi,all
>>>>>>> This patch add an colo-proxy object, COLO-Proxy is a part of COLO,
>>>>>>> based on qemu netfilter and it's a plugin for qemu netfilter. the
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>> keep Secondary VM connect normal to Primary VM and compare packets
>>>>>>> sent by PVM to sent by SVM.if the packet difference,notify COLO do
>>>>>>> checkpoint and send all primary packet has queued.
>>>>>> Thanks for the work. I don't object this method but still not
>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>> that qemu is the best place for this.
>>>>>> As been raised in the past discussion, it's almost impossible to
>>>>>> cooperate with vhost backends. If we want this to be used in
>>>>>> production
>>>>>> environment, need to think of a solution for vhost. There's no such
>>>>>> worry if we decouple this from qemu.
>>>>>>> You can also get the series from:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/zhangckid/qemu/tree/colo-v2.2-periodic-mode-with-colo-proxyV2
>>>>>>> Usage:
>>>>>>> primary:
>>>>>>> -netdev tap,id=bn0 -device e1000,netdev=bn0
>>>>>>> -object
>>>>>>> colo-proxy,id=f0,netdev=bn0,queue=all,mode=primary,addr=host:port
>>>>>>> secondary:
>>>>>>> -netdev tap,id=bn0 -device e1000,netdev=bn0
>>>>>>> -object
>>>>>>> colo-proxy,id=f0,netdev=bn0,queue=all,mode=secondary,addr=host:port
>>>>>> Have a quick glance at how secondary mode work. What it does is just
>>>>>> forwarding packets between a nic and a socket, qemu socket backend did
>>>>>> exact the same job. You could even use socket in primary node and let
>>>>>> packet compare module talk to both primary and secondary node.
>>>>> If we use qemu socket backend , the same netdev will used by qemu
>>>>> socket and
>>>>> qemu netfilter. this will against qemu net design. and then, when colo
>>>>> do failover,
>>>>> secondary do not have backend to use. that's the real problem.
>>>> Then, maybe it's time to implement changing the netdev of a nic. The
>>>> point here is that what secondary mode did is in fact a netdev backend
>>>> instead of a filter ...
>>> Currently, you are right. in colo-proxy V2 code, I just compare IP
>>> packet to
>>> decide whether to do checkpoint.
>>> But, in colo-proxy V3 I will compare tcp,icmp,udp packet to decide it.
>>> because that can reduce frequency of checkpoint and improve
>>> performance. To keep tcp connection well, colo secondary need to record
>>> primary guest's init seq and adjust secondary guest's ack. if colo do
>>> failover,
>>> secondary also need do this to old tcp connection. qemu socket
>>> can't do this job.
>> So a question here: is it a must to do things (e.g TCP analysis stuffs)
>> at secondary? Looks like we could do this at primary node. And I saw
>> you're doing packet comparing in primary node, any advantages of doing
>> this in primary instead of secondary?
> It needs to do this on the secondary; the trick is that things like TCP 
> sequence
> numbers are likely to be different on the primary and secondary; the kernel 
> colo-proxy
> implementation solved this problem by rewriting the sequence numbers on
> the secondary to match the primary, after a failover, the secondary has
> to keep doing that rewrite to ensure existing connections are OK.
> Thus it's holding some state about the current connections.

I see.

> I think also, to be able to do a 2nd failover (i.e. recover from the 1st 
> failure
> and then sometime later have another) you'd have to sync this
> state over to a new host, so again that says the state needs to be part of
> qemu or at least easily available to it.
> Dave

Right, if it does thing like tcp seq rewrite (which is missed in current
version), it works much more like a netfilter. Wonder if the function is
generic enough for users other than colo.


>>> and another problem is do failover, if we use qemu socket
>>> to be backend in secondary, when colo do failover, I don't know how to
>>> change
>>> secondary be a normal qemu, if you know, please tell me.
>> Current qemu couldn't do this, but I mean we implement something like
>> nic_change_backend which can change nic's peer(s). With this, in
>> secondary, we can replace the socket backend with whatever you want (e.g
>> tap or other).
>> Thanks
>>> Thanks for your revew
>>> zhangchen 
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]