On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:57:50AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:44:16AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:26:51PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > > > On 2017-09-18 12:06, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 03:58:01PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > > > >> On 2017-09-14 17:57, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > >>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:19:07PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > > > >>>> This patch implements active synchronous mirroring. In active mode, > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> passive mechanism will still be in place and is used to copy all > > > >>>> initially dirty clusters off the source disk; but every write request > > > >>>> will write data both to the source and the target disk, so the source > > > >>>> cannot be dirtied faster than data is mirrored to the target. Also, > > > >>>> once the block job has converged (BLOCK_JOB_READY sent), source and > > > >>>> target are guaranteed to stay in sync (unless an error occurs). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Optionally, dirty data can be copied to the target disk on read > > > >>>> operations, too. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Active mode is completely optional and currently disabled at > > > >>>> runtime. A > > > >>>> later patch will add a way for users to enable it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> qapi/block-core.json | 23 +++++++ > > > >>>> block/mirror.c | 187 > > > >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > >>>> 2 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > > > >>>> index bb11815608..e072cfa67c 100644 > > > >>>> --- a/qapi/block-core.json > > > >>>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > > > >>>> @@ -938,6 +938,29 @@ > > > >>>> 'data': ['top', 'full', 'none', 'incremental'] } > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ## > > > >>>> +# @MirrorCopyMode: > > > >>>> +# > > > >>>> +# An enumeration whose values tell the mirror block job when to > > > >>>> +# trigger writes to the target. > > > >>>> +# > > > >>>> +# @passive: copy data in background only. > > > >>>> +# > > > >>>> +# @active-write: when data is written to the source, write it > > > >>>> +# (synchronously) to the target as well. In > > > >>>> addition, > > > >>>> +# data is copied in background just like in @passive > > > >>>> +# mode. > > > >>>> +# > > > >>>> +# @active-read-write: write data to the target (synchronously) both > > > >>>> +# when it is read from and written to the > > > >>>> source. > > > >>>> +# In addition, data is copied in background just > > > >>>> +# like in @passive mode. > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm not sure the terms "active"/"passive" are helpful. "Active > > > >>> commit" > > > >>> means committing the top-most BDS while the guest is accessing it. > > > >>> The > > > >>> "passive" mirror block still works on the top-most BDS while the guest > > > >>> is accessing it. > > > >>> > > > >>> Calling it "asynchronous" and "synchronous" is clearer to me. It's > > > >>> also > > > >>> the terminology used in disk replication (e.g. DRBD). > > > >> > > > >> I'd be OK with that, too, but I think I remember that in the past at > > > >> least Kevin made a clear distinction between active/passive and > > > >> sync/async when it comes to mirroring. > > > >> > > > >>> Ideally the user wouldn't have to worry about async vs sync because > > > >>> QEMU > > > >>> would switch modes as appropriate in order to converge. That way > > > >>> libvirt also doesn't have to worry about this. > > > >> > > > >> So here you mean async/sync in the way I meant it, i.e., whether the > > > >> mirror operations themselves are async/sync? > > > > > > > > The meaning I had in mind is: > > > > > > > > Sync mirroring means a guest write waits until the target write > > > > completes. > > > > > > I.e. active-sync, ... > > > > > > > Async mirroring means guest writes completes independently of target > > > > writes. > > > > > > ... i.e. passive or active-async in the future. > > > > > > So you really want qemu to decide whether to use active or passive mode > > > depending on what's enough to let the block job converge and not > > > introduce any switch for the user? > > > > > > I'm not sure whether I like this too much, mostly because "libvirt > > > doesn't have to worry" doesn't feel quite right to me. If we don't make > > > libvirt worry about this, then qemu has to worry. I'm not sure whether > > > that's any better. > > > > > > I think this really does get into policy territory. Just switching to > > > active mode the instant target writes are slower than source writes may > > > not be what the user wants: Maybe it's OK for a short duration because > > > they don't care about hard convergence too much. Maybe they want to > > > switch to active mode already when "only" twice as much is written to > > > the target as to the source. > > > > > > I think this is a decision the management layer (or the user) has to make. > > > > Eric: Does libvirt want to be involved with converging the mirror job > > (i.e. if the guest is writing to disk faster than QEMU can copy data to > > the target)? > > Libvirt doesn't really want to set the policy - it will just need to expose > the mechansim & information to make such decisions upto the application. > > I agree with Max that we don't want QEMU making this policy decision on > its own. Simply switching from passive to active mode is not an approach > that will be satisfactory to all scenarios. It might be preferrable to > apply CPU throttling of the guest, or I/O rate throttling, or temporarily > pause the guest to allow catch or any number of other policies. Neither > libvirt or QEMU knows which is best for the scenario at hand.
Okay. Stefan