> Can anyone guide me on how to theoretically build a very "lock" safe 5-node > active-active KVM cluster atop Ceph RBD? Must I use sanlock with its NFS > or GFS2 with its performance bottlenecks? Does your answer work for LXC > (sans the current state of live migration)? The "proper" way would likely be to add a new libvirt lock manager plugin that uses ceph's locking, or perhaps extend virtlockd to be able to acquire locks on ceph. The hook scripts aren't called in the right places to be able todo safe locking in all scenarios where you need it, in particular I don't think it'll cope with migration correctly. Daniel

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:47:35PM -0500, Joshua Dotson wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to build an active/active virtualization cluster using a Ceph > RBD as backing for each libvirt-managed LXC. I know live migration for LXC > isn't yet possible, but I'd like to build my infrastructure as if it were. > That is, I would like to be sure proper locking is in place for live > migrations to someday take place. In other words, I'm building things as > if I were using KVM and live migration via libvirt. > > I've been looking at corosync, pacemaker, virtlock, sanlock, gfs2, ocfs2, > glusterfs, cephfs, ceph RBD and other solutions. I admit that I'm quite > confused. If oVirt, with its embedded GlusterFS and its planned > self-hosted engine option, supported LXC, I'd use that. However the stars > have not yet aligned for that. > > It seems that the most elegant and scalable approach may be to utilize > Ceph's RBD with its native locking mechanism plus corosync and pacemaker > for fencing, for a number of reasons out of scope for this email. > > *My question now is in regards to proper locking. Please see the following > links. The libvirt hook looks good, but is there any expectation that this > arrangement will become a patch to libvirt itself, as is suggested by the > second link?* > > http://www.wogri.at/en/linux/ceph-libvirt-locking/ > > http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2013-August/003887.html > > Can anyone guide me on how to theoretically build a very "lock" safe 5-node > active-active KVM cluster atop Ceph RBD? Must I use sanlock with its NFS > or GFS2 with its performance bottlenecks? Does your answer work for LXC > (sans the current state of live migration)? The "proper" way would likely be to add a new libvirt lock manager plugin that uses ceph's locking, or perhaps extend virtlockd to be able to acquire locks on ceph. The hook scripts aren't called in the right places to be able todo safe locking in all scenarios where you need it, in particular I don't think it'll cope with migration correctly. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/:| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org:| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/:| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc:|