3:33 p.m.
Hi, All. Is it possible to run vdsm without sanlock? We'd prefer to run libvirtd
with virtlockd (lock_manager = "lockd") to avoid the sanlock overhead, but it
looks like vdsmd / ovirt requires sanlock.
Thanks,
Devin
4:02 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Devin A. Bougie
<devin.bougie(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
Hi, All. Is it possible to run vdsm without sanlock? We'd
prefer to run libvirtd with virtlockd (lock_manager = "lockd") to avoid the
sanlock overhead, but it looks like vdsmd / ovirt requires sanlock.
True, we require sanlock.
What is "sanlock overhead"?
Nir
Thanks,
Devin
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
9:59 a.m.
Hi Nir,
On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:02 AM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Devin A. Bougie
<devin.bougie(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
> Hi, All. Is it possible to run vdsm without sanlock? We'd prefer to run
libvirtd with virtlockd (lock_manager = "lockd") to avoid the sanlock overhead,
but it looks like vdsmd / ovirt requires sanlock.
True, we require sanlock.
What is "sanlock overhead"?
Mainly the dependence on a shared or remote filesystem (nfs, gfs2, etc.). I have no
problem setting up the filesystem or configuring sanlock to use it, but then the vm's
fail if the shared filesystem blocks or fails. We'd like to have our vm images use
block devices and avoid any dependency on a remote or shared file system. My
understanding is that virtlockd can lock a block device directly, while sanlock requires
something like gfs2 or nfs.
Perhaps it's my misunderstanding or misreading, but it seemed like things were moving
in the direction of virtlockd. For example:
http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2015-March/010127.html
Thanks for following up!
Devin
1:10 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Devin A. Bougie
<devin.bougie(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
Hi Nir,
On Nov 6, 2015, at 5:02 AM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Devin A. Bougie <devin.bougie(a)cornell.edu>
wrote:
>> Hi, All. Is it possible to run vdsm without sanlock? We'd prefer to run
libvirtd with virtlockd (lock_manager = "lockd") to avoid the sanlock overhead,
but it looks like vdsmd / ovirt requires sanlock.
>
> True, we require sanlock.
> What is "sanlock overhead"?
Mainly the dependence on a shared or remote filesystem (nfs, gfs2, etc.).
There is no such dependency.
Sanlock is using either an lv on block device (iscsi, fcp) or a file
(on nfs, gluster) to
maintain leases.
If sanlock cannot access storage and maintain the lease, it is likely
that your vm
also cannot access storage and will pause soon.
Anything else?
Nir
10:16 a.m.
On Nov 7, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Mainly the dependence on a shared or remote filesystem (nfs,
gfs2, etc.).
There is no such dependency.
Sanlock is using either an lv on block device (iscsi, fop)
Thanks, Nir! I was thinking sanlock required a disk_lease_dir, which all the
documentation says to put on NFS or GFS2. However, as you say I now see that ovirt can
use sanlock with block devices without requiring a disk_lease_dir.
Thanks again,
Devin
3100
days inactive
3102
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Devin A. Bougie -
Nir Soffer