cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkow...@netapp.com>
Subject Re: storage affinity groups
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2016 18:49:46 GMT
Yep, based on the recent e-mail Yiping sent, I would agree, Will.

At the time being, you have two options: 1) storage tagging 2) fault-tolerant primary storage
like a SAN.
________________________________________
From: williamstevens@gmail.com <williamstevens@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
<wstevens@cloudops.com>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 12:44 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: storage affinity groups

My understanding is that he wants to do anti-affinity across primary
storage endpoints.  So if he has two web servers, it would ensure that one
of his web servers is on Primary1 and the other is on Primary2.  This means
that if he loses a primary storage for some reason, he only loses one of
his load balanced web servers.

Does that sound about right?

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>
wrote:

> Hi Yiping,
>
> Reading your most recent e-mail, it seems like you are looking for a
> feature that does more than simply makes sure virtual disks are roughly
> allocated equally across the primary storages of a given cluster.
>
> At first, that is what I imagined your request to be.
>
> From this e-mail, though, it looks like this is something you'd like users
> to be able to personally choose (ex. a user might want virtual disk 1 on
> different storage than virtual disk 2).
>
> Is that a fair representation of your request?
>
> If so, I believe storage tagging (as was mentioned by Marty) is the only
> way to do that at present. It does, as you indicated, lead to a
> proliferation of offerings, however.
>
> As for how I personally solve this issue: I do not run a cloud. I work for
> a storage vendor. In our situation, the clustered SAN that we develop is
> highly fault tolerant. If the SAN is offline, then it probably means your
> entire datacenter is offline (ex. power loss of some sort).
>
> Talk to you later,
> Mike
> ________________________________________
> From: Yiping Zhang <yzhang@marketo.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 11:08 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: storage affinity groups
>
> I am not a Java developer, so I am at a total loss on Mike’s approach. How
> would end users choose this new storage pool allocator from UI when
> provisioning new instance?
>
> My hope is that if the feature is added to ACS, end users can assign an
> anti-storage affinity group to VM instances, just as assign anti-host
> affinity groups from UI or API, either at VM creation time, or update
> assignments for existing instances (along with any necessary VM stop/start,
> storage migration actions, etc).
>
> Obviously, this feature is useful only when there are more than one
> primary storage devices available for the same cluster or zone (in case for
> zone wide primary storage volumes).
>
> Just curious, how many primary storage volumes are available for your
> clusters/zones?
>
> Regards,
> Yiping
>
> On 9/8/16, 6:04 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>     Personally, I think the most flexible way is if you have a developer
> write a storage-pool allocator to customize the placement of virtual disks
> as you see fit.
>
>     You extend the StoragePoolAllocator class, write your logic, and
> update a config file so that Spring is aware of the new allocator and
> creates an instance of it when the management server is started up.
>
>     You might even want to extend ClusterScopeStoragePoolAllocator
> (instead of directly implementing StoragePoolAllocator) as it possibly
> provides some useful functionality for you already.
>     ________________________________________
>     From: Marty Godsey <marty@gonsource.com>
>     Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 6:27 PM
>     To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>     Subject: RE: storage affinity groups
>
>     So what would be the best way to do it? I use templates to make it
> simple for my users so that the Xen tools are already installed as an
> example.
>
>     Regards,
>     Marty Godsey
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Yiping Zhang [mailto:yzhang@marketo.com]
>     Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:55 PM
>     To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>     Subject: Re: storage affinity groups
>
>     Well, using tags leads to proliferation of templates or service
> offerings etc. It is not very scalable and gets out of hand very quickly.
>
>     Yiping
>
>     On 9/8/16, 4:25 PM, "Marty Godsey" <marty@gonsource.com> wrote:
>
>         I do this by using storage tags. As an example I have some
> templates that are either created on SSD or magnetic storage. The template
> has a storage tag associated with it and then I assigned the appropriate
> storage tag to the primary storage.
>
>         Regards,
>         Marty Godsey
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com]
>         Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:16 PM
>         To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>         Subject: Re: storage affinity groups
>
>         If one doesn't already exist, you can write a custom storage
> allocator to handle this scenario.
>
>         > On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Yiping Zhang <yzhang@marketo.com>
> wrote:
>         >
>         > Hi,  Devs:
>         >
>         > We all know how (anti)-host affinity group works in CloudStack,
> I am wondering if there is a similar concept for (anti)-storage affinity
> group?
>         >
>         > The use case is as this:  in a setup with just one (somewhat)
> unreliable primary storage, if the primary storage is off line, then all VM
> instances would be impacted. Now if we have two primary storage volumes for
> the cluster, then when one of them goes offline, only half of VM instances
> would be impacted (assuming the VM instances are evenly distributed between
> the two primary storage volumes).  Thus, the (anti)-storage affinity groups
> would make sure that instance's disk volumes are distributed among
> available primary storage volumes just like (anti)-host affinity groups
> would distribute instances among hosts.
>         >
>         > Does anyone else see the benefits of anti-storage affinity
> groups?
>         >
>         > Yiping
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message