Hello, I don't use KVM and libvirt but my experiment concerne clustering storage : 1. Don't know 2. Snapshotting is supported in clvm (since 5.7 I think) Complexity... yes Bugs... yes Split brain... yes 2 nodes is sufficient for HA, juste think what happens if 1 node shuts down and your VMs are very loded (needs 3rd nodes ?) 3. No experiment too but it sounds like it's not the right usage
Best regards -- JD -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Alan Wood Envoyé : samedi 17 septembre 2011 00:26 À : [email protected] Objet : [Linux-cluster] shared disk with virsh migration Hi all, I'm trying to decide whether I really need a cluster implementation to do what I want to do and I figured I'd solicit opinions. Essentially I want to have two machines running as virtualization hosts with libvirt/kvm. I have shared iSCSI storage available to both hosts and have to decide how to configure the storage for use with libvirt. Right now I see three possibilities: 1. Setting an iSCSI storage pool in libvirt Pros: Migration seems painless, including live migration Cons: Need to pre-allocate LUNs on iSCSI box. Does not seem to take advantage of iSCSI offloading or multipathing 2. Setting up a two-node cluster and running CLVM Pros: Very flexible storage management (is snapshotting supported yet in clvm?) Automatic failover Cons: Cluster infrastructure adds complexity, more potential for bugs Possible split brain issues? 3. A single iSCSI block device with partitions for each VM mounted on both hosts Pros: Easy migration, setup Cons: Two hosts accessing the same block device outside of a cluster seems like it might lead to disaster Right now I actually like option 3 but I'm wondering if I really am asking for trouble accessing a block device simultaneously on two hosts without a clustering infrastructure. I did this a while back with a shared-SCSI box and it seemed to work. I would never be accessing the same partition on both hosts and I understand that all partitioning has to be done while the other host is off, but is there something else I'm missing here? Also, are people out there running option 2? Does it make sesne to set up a cluster as small as 2-nodes for HA virtualization or do I really need more nodes for it to be worthwhile? I do have all the fencing infrastructure I might need (PDUs and Dracs). any help would be appreciated. thanks -alan -- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster ------- Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. L'intégrité de ce message n'étant pas assurée sur Internet, la SNCF ne peut être tenue responsable des altérations qui pourraient se produire sur son contenu. Toute publication, utilisation, reproduction, ou diffusion, même partielle, non autorisée préalablement par la SNCF, est strictement interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce message, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. ------- This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and are confidential. SNCF may not be held responsible for their contents whose accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed over the Internet. Unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, copying, or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete it. -- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
