On 01/26/2016 04:20 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Li Zhijian (lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
On 01/25/2016 09:32 AM, Wen Congyang wrote:
f) I've not thought about the colo-proxy that much yet - I guess that
existing connections need to keep their sequence number offset but
Strictly speaking， after failover, we only need to keep servicing for the tcp
connections which are
established after the last checkpoint but not all existing connections. Because
after a checkpoint
（primary and secondary node works well）, primary vm and secondary vm is same，
that means the existing
tcp connection has the same sequence。
new connections made by what is now the primary dont need to do anything
special.
Yes, you are right.
I wonder whether we need to do something special to the new-secondary;
consider this:
1 primary (P1) & secondary (S1) run together
2 New connection opened
3 secondary records an offset
4 <running OK for a while - no checkpoint>
5 primary (P1) fails; do failover to secondary
6 secondary (S1) still rewrites sequence for connection opened at (2)
7 Start new-secondary (S2), send checkpoint from S1->S2
8 S2 has same guest contents as S1; so the
sequence numbers are still offset compared to the outside world.
So S2 needs to be sent the offsets for existing connections, otherwise
is S1 was then to fail, S2 would send the wrong output on the existing
connection?
Thanks for the example.
Sure, if we support continuous FT, colo proxy need to implement migration_save
and migration_load.
At the beginning of (7), we need to save colo_proxy info(including connection
info and sequence offset) at S1
and load colo_proxy at S2. S1/S2 need to keep doing tcp re-writer for the
connections opened at (2)
until they are closed.
Thanks
Li Zhijian
Dave
Hailiang or Zhijian can answer this question.
Thanks
Li Zhijian
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
.
--
Best regards.
Li Zhijian (8555)
