Le Monday 16 Sep 2013 à 15:41:45 (+0800), Fam Zheng a écrit :
> On Sun, 09/15 20:10, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > Le Friday 06 Sep 2013 à 11:55:38 (+0200), Kevin Wolf a écrit :
> > > Am 06.09.2013 um 11:18 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > > On Fri, 09/06 10:45, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > > Am 06.09.2013 um 09:56 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > > > > Since BlockDriver.bdrv_snapshot_create() is an optional operation,
> > > > > > blockdev.c
> > > > > > can navigate down the tree from top node, until hitting some layer
> > > > > > where the op
> > > > > > is implemented (the QCow2 bs), so we get rid of this
> > > > > > top_node_below_filter
> > > > > > pointer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it even inherent to a block driver (like a filter), if a snapshot
> > > > > is
> > > > > to be taken at its level? Or is it rather a policy decision that
> > > > > should
> > > > > be made by the user?
> > > > >
> > > > OK, getting the point that user should have full flexibility and fine
> > > > operation
> > > > granularity. It also stands against
> > > > block_backend->top_node_below_filter. Do we
> > > > really have the assumption that all the filters are on top of the tree
> > > > and linear?
> > > > Shouldn't this be possible?
> > > >
> > > > Block Backend
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > Quodrum BDS
> > > > / | \
> > > > throttle filter | \
> > > > / | \
> > > > qcow2 qcow2 qcow2
> > > >
> > > > So we throttle only a particular image, not the whole device. But this
> > > > will
> > > > make a top_node_below_filter pointer impossible.
> > >
> > > I was assuming that Benoît's model works for the special case of
> > > snapshotting in one predefined way, but this is actually a very good
> > > example of why it doesn't.
> > >
> > > The approach relies on snapshotting siblings together, and in this case
> > > the siblings would be throttle/qcow2/qcow2, while throttle is still a
> > > filter. This
> > > would mean that either throttle needs to be top_node_below_filter and
> > > throttling doesn't stay on top, or the left qcow2 is
> > > top_node_below_filter and the other Quorum images aren't snapshotted.
> > >
> > > > > In our example, the quorum driver, it's not at all clear to me that
> > > > > you
> > > > > want to snapshot all children. In order to roll back to a previous
> > > > > state, one snapshot is enough, you don't need multiple copies of the
> > > > > same one. Perhaps you want two so that we can still compare them for
> > > > > verification. Or all of them because you can afford the disk space and
> > > > > want ultimate safety. I don't think qemu can know which one is true.
> > > > >
> > > > Only if quorum ever knows about and operates on snapshots, it should be
> > > > considered specifically, but no. So we need to achieve this in the
> > > > general
> > > > design: allow user to take snapshot, or set throttle limits on
> > > > particular
> > > > BDSes, as above graph.
> > > >
> > > > > In the same way, in a typical case you may want to keep I/O throttling
> > > > > for the whole drive, including the new snapshot. But what if the
> > > > > throttling was used in order to not overload the network where the
> > > > > image
> > > > > is stored, and you're now doing a local snapshot, to which you want to
> > > > > stream the image? The I/O throttling should apply only to the backing
> > > > > file, not the new snapshot.
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, and OTOH, throttling really suits to be a filter only if it can be
> > > > a non
> > > > top one, otherwise it's no better than what we have now.
> > >
> > > Well, it would be a cleaner architecture in any case, but having it in
> > > the middle of the stack feels useful indeed, so we should support it.
> > >
> > > > > So perhaps what we really need is a more flexible snapshot/BDS tree
> > > > > manipulation command that describes in detail which structure you want
> > > > > to have in the end.
> > >
> > > Designing the corresponding QMP command is the hard part, I guess.
> >
> > During my vacation I though about the fact that JSON is pretty good to
> > build a
> > tree.
> >
> > QMP, HMP and the command line could take a "block-tree" argument which would
> > look like the following.
> >
> > block-tree = { 'quorum': [
> > {
> > 'throttle' : {
> > 'qcow2' : { 'filename': "img1.qcow2" }
> > 'snapshotable': true,
>
> What's the 'snapshotable' for?
Kevin mentioned the fact that when taking a snapshot with QUORUM we may want to
snapshot only a part of the QUORUM branches.
snapshotable is a way to indicate to the QCOW2 driver that it must create a new
snapshot when the snapshoting order cascade down the bs tree.
Best regards
Benoît
>
> > },
> > 'throttle-iops' : 150,
> > 'throttle-iops-max' : 1000,
> > },
> > {
> > 'qcow2' : { 'filename': "img2.qcow2" },
> > 'snapshotable': true,
> > },
> > {
> > 'qcow2' : { 'filename': "img3.qcow2" }
> > 'snapshotable': false,
> > }
> > ] };
> >
>
> It's not very clear to me. Does this mean a key associated with a dict value
> means creating type? What do you put in the inner dict (i.e. why filename
> here)
> and what to put outter besides the key (i.e. snapshotable)? Where to put 'id'?
>
> I think JSON is flexible enough to specify anything we can take, but the
> format
> needs to be designed carefully. And do we really want to use JSON in the
> command line options? Very hard to imagine that. :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fam
>
> > This would be passed to QEMU in a compact form without carriage return and
> > spaces.
> >
> > The block layer would convert this to C structs like the QMP code would do
> > for a
> > QMP command and the bs tree would be recursively build from top to bottom by
> > the Block Backend and each Block driver in the path using the C structs.
> >
> > Each level would instanciate the lower level until a raw or protocol driver
> > is
> > reached.
> >
> > What about this ?
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Benoît
> >
