Hi, There has been some work going on on the VxHS libvirt patches and we are making good progress.
A suggestion has been made on the libvirt community to check if we can change the qemu VxHS device specification syntax as follows. Replace (a) +file.server.host=192.168.0.1,file.server.port=9999 with (b) +file.host=192.168.0.1,file.port=9999 The reasoning being that since we have only one host (true as the failover is now being handled completely/transparently) within the libqnio library), the "server" part is redundant. Excerpt from John Ferlan's email - /======================================/ #2. Is the desire to ever support more than 1 host? If not, then is the "server" syntax you've borrowed from the Gluster code necessary? Could you just go with the single "host" like NBD and SSH. As it relates to the qemu command line - I'm not quite as clear. From the example I see in commit id '7b7da9e28', the gluster syntax would have: +file.server.0.type=tcp,file.server.0.host=example.org,file.server.0.port=6000,\ +file.server.1.type=tcp,file.server.1.host=example.org,file.server.1.port=24007,\ +file.server.2.type=unix,file.server.2.socket=/path/to/sock,format=qcow2,\ whereas, the VxHS syntax is: +file.server.host=192.168.0.1,file.server.port=9999,format=raw,if=none,\ FWIW: I also note there is no ".type=tcp" in your output - so perhaps the "default" is tcp unless otherwise specified, but I'm sure of the qemu syntax requirements in this area. I assume that since there's only 1 server, the ".0, .1, .2" become unnecessary (something added by commit id 'f1bbc7df4' for multiple gluster hosts). I haven't closedly followed the qemu syntax discussion, but it would it would be possible to use: +file.host=192.168.0.1,file.port=9999 Similar to how NBD (see commit id 'a1674fd9') and SSH (see commit id 'bc225b1b5') are handled. /======================================/ If this proposal looks OK to the community, then I will make this user interface change in the next VxHS qemu patch. Thanks, Ashish On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:05 AM, ashish mittal <ashmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 11/16 10:04, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> ashish mittal <ashmit...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> > Thanks for concluding on this. >>>> > >>>> > I will rearrange the qnio_api.h header accordingly as follows: >>>> > >>>> > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" >>>> >>>> Headers should not include osdep.h. >>> >>> This is about including "osdep.h" _and_ "qnio_api.h" in block/vxhs.c, so >>> what >>> Ashish means looks good to me. >> >> Yes, I think "will rearrange the qnio_api.h header" was a typo and was >> supposed to be block/vxhs.c. >> >> Stefan > > Thanks for the correction. Yes, i meant rearrange headers in block/vxhs.c.
