Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] qemu and qemu.git -> Migration + disk stress introduces qcow2 corruptions

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:37:27AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:34:15PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:29:18AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:21:53PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > Am 14.11.2011 12:08, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:24:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:16:10AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > >>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:25:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > >>>> On 11/11/2011 12:15 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > >>>>> Am 10.11.2011 22:30, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > > > > >>>>>> Live migration with qcow2 or any other image format is just not going to work > > > > >>>>>> right now even with proper clustered storage. I think doing a block level flush > > > > >>>>>> cache interface and letting block devices decide how to do it is the best approach. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I would really prefer reusing the existing open/close code. It means > > > > >>>>> less (duplicated) code, is existing code that is well tested and doesn't > > > > >>>>> make migration much of a special case. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> If you want to avoid reopening the file on the OS level, we can reopen > > > > >>>>> only the topmost layer (i.e. the format, but not the protocol) for now > > > > >>>>> and in 1.1 we can use bdrv_reopen(). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Intuitively I dislike _reopen style interfaces. If the second open > > > > >>>> yields different results from the first, does it invalidate any > > > > >>>> computations in between? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> What's wrong with just delaying the open? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If you delay the 'open' until the mgmt app issues 'cont', then you loose > > > > >>> the ability to rollback to the source host upon open failure for most > > > > >>> deployed versions of libvirt. We only fairly recently switched to a five > > > > >>> stage migration handshake to cope with rollback when 'cont' fails. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Daniel > > > > >> > > > > >> I guess reopen can fail as well, so this seems to me to be an important > > > > >> fix but not a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > If if the initial open succeeds, then it is far more likely that a later > > > > > re-open will succeed too, because you have already elminated the possibility > > > > > of configuration mistakes, and will have caught most storage runtime errors > > > > > too. So there is a very significant difference in reliability between doing > > > > > an 'open at startup + reopen at cont' vs just 'open at cont' > > > > > > > > > > Based on the bug reports I see, we want to be very good at detecting and > > > > > gracefully handling open errors because they are pretty frequent. > > > > > > > > Do you have some more details on the kind of errors? Missing files, > > > > permissions, something like this? Or rather something related to the > > > > actual content of an image file? > > > > > > Missing files due to wrong/missing NFS mounts, or incorrect SAN / iSCSI > > > setup. Access permissions due to incorrect user / group setup, or read > > > only mounts, or SELinux denials. Actual I/O errors are less common and > > > are not so likely to cause QEMU to fail to start any, since QEMU is > > > likely to just report them to the guest OS instead. > > > > Do you run qemu with -S, then give a 'cont' command to start it? Probably in an attempt to improve reliability :)