[pve-devel] [PATCH RFC storage] rbd: fix #3286 add namespace support
Fabian Grünbichler
f.gruenbichler at proxmox.com
Wed Mar 3 13:17:09 CET 2021
On March 3, 2021 11:10 am, aderumier at odiso.com wrote:
> Is they any plan on the roadmap to generalize namespace, but at vm
> level ?
>
> I'm still looking for easy cross-cluster vm migration with shared
> storage.
I recently picked up the remote migration feature, FWIW ;)
>
> I was thinking about something simple like
> /etc/pve/<node>/qemu-server/<namespace>/<vmid.conf>
> with new disk volumes including the namespace in their path like:
> "scsi0: <storage>:<namespace>/vm-100-disk-0"
I am not sure how that would solve the issue? the problem with sharing a
shared storage between clusters is that VMID 100 on cluster A and VMID
100 on cluster B are not the same entity, so a volume owned by VMID 100
is not attributable to either cluster.
if both clusters are allowed to setup a namespace FOO, then you need to
manually take care not to duplicate VMIDs inside this namespace across
all clusters, just like you have to take care to not duplicate VMIDs
across all clusters right now?
if only one cluster is allowed to use a certain namespace, then shared
migration needs to do a rename (or rather, move the VM and volumes
from one namespace to another). that would mean no live-migration, since
a live-rename of a volume is not possible, unless the namespace is not
actually encoded in the volume name on the storage. if the namespace
is not actually encoded in the volume name, it does not protect against
cross-namespace confusion (since when listing a storage's contents, I
can't tell which namespace volume BAR belongs to), and we'd be back to
square one.
IMHO there are things that might help with the issue:
- a client used to manage all clusters that ensures a VMID is not
assigned to more than one cluster
- better support for custom volids (reduce chance of clashes, does not
solve issue with orphaned/unreferenced volumes)
- allow marking a storage as "don't scan for unreferenced volumes", so
that stray volumes likely belonging to other clusters are not picked
up when migrating/deleting/.. guests (setting this would also need to
disallow deleting any volumes via the storage API instead of the guest
API, as we don't have any safeguards on the storage level then..)
the first point is hard to do atomically, since we don't have a
cross-cluster pmxcfs, but some sort of "assign ranges to clusters,
remember exceptions for VMs which have been migrated away" could work,
if ALL management then happens using this client and not the regular
per-cluster API. this could also be supported in PVE right now
(configure range in datacenter.cfg, have some API call to register "this
VMID is burnt/does not belong to this cluster anymore, ignore it for all
intents and purposes) - although obviously this would not yet guarantuee
no re-use across clusters, but just enable integration/management tools
to have some support on the PVE side for enforcing those ranges.
just some quick thoughts, might not be 100% thought-through in all
directions :-P
More information about the pve-devel
mailing list