Leen, 

thanks for explaining things. I does make sense now. 

Unfortunately, it does look like this technology would not fulfill my 
requirements as I do need to have an ability to perform maintenance without 
shutting down vms. 

I will open another topic to discuss possible solutions. 

Thanks for all your help 

Andrei 
----- Original Message -----

From: "Leen Besselink" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Cc: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <[email protected]> 
Sent: Sunday, 11 May, 2014 11:41:08 PM 
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] NFS over CEPH - best practice 

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 09:24:30PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: 
> Sorry if these questions will sound stupid, but I was not able to find an 
> answer by googling. 
> 

As the Astralians say: no worries, mate. 

It's fine. 

> 1. Does iSCSI protocol support having multiple target servers to serve the 
> same disk/block device? 
> 

No, I don't think so. What does work is active/standby failover. 

I suggest to have some kind of clustering, because as far as I can see, you 
never want to have 2 target servers active if they don't share state 
(as far as I know there is no Linux iSCSI-target server which can share state 
between 2 targets). 

When there is a failure there is time to have all targets offline for a brief 
moment, before the second target comes online. The initiators should be able to 
handle short interruptions. 

> In case of ceph, the same rbd disk image. I was hoping to have multiple 
> servers to mount the same rbd disk and serve it as an iscsi LUN. This LUN 
> would be used as a vm image storage on vmware / xenserver. 
> 

You'd have one server which handles a LUN, with it goes down, an other should 
take over the target IP-address and handle requests for that LUN. 

> 2.Does iscsi multipathing provide failover/HA capability only on the 
> initiator side? The docs that i came across all mention multipathing on the 
> client side, like using two different nics. I did not find anything about 
> having multiple nics on the initiator connecting to multiple iscsi target 
> servers. 
> 

Multipathing for iSCSI, as I see it, only does one thing: it can be used to 
create multiple network paths between the initiator and the target. They can be 
used for resiliance (read: failover) or for loadbalancing when you need more 
bandwidth. 

The way I would do it is to have 2 switches and connect each initiator and each 
target to both switches. Also you would have 2 IP-subnets. 

So both the target and initiator would have 2 IP-addresses, one from each 
subnet. 

So for example: the target would have: 10.0.1.1 and 10.0.2.1 and the initiator: 
10.0.1.11 and 10.0.2.11 

Then you run the IP-traffic for 10.0.1.x on switch 1 and the 10.0.2.x traffic 
on switch 2. 

Thus, you have created a resilient set up: The target has multiple connections 
to the network, the initiator has multiple connections to the network and you 
can also handle a switch failover. 

> I was hoping to have resilient solution on the storage side so that I can 
> perform upgrades and maintenance without needing to shutdown vms running on 
> vmware/xenserver. Is this possible with iscsi? 
> 

The failover set up is mostly to handle failures, not really great for 
maintenance because it does give a short interruption in service. Like 30 
seconds or so of no writing to the LUN. 

That might not be a problem for you, I don't know, but it is at least something 
to be aware of. And also something you should test when you've build the setup. 

> Cheers 
> 

Hope that helps. 

> Andrei 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: "Leen Besselink" <[email protected]> 
> To: [email protected] 
> Sent: Saturday, 10 May, 2014 8:31:02 AM 
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] NFS over CEPH - best practice 
> 
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: 
> > Ideally I would like to have a setup with 2+ iscsi servers, so that I can 
> > perform maintenance if necessary without shutting down the vms running on 
> > the servers. I guess multipathing is what I need. 
> > 
> > Also I will need to have more than one xenserver/vmware host servers, so 
> > the iscsi LUNs will be mounted on several servers. 
> > 
> 
> So you have multiple machines talking to the same LUN at the same time ? 
> 
> You'll have to co-ordinate how changes are written to the backing store, 
> normally you'd have the virtualization servers use some kind of protocol. 
> 
> When it's SCSI there are the older Reserve/Release commands and the newer 
> SCSI-3 Persistent Reservation commands. 
> 
> (i)SCSI allows multiple changes to be in-flight, without coordination things 
> will go wrong. 
> 
> Below it was mentioned that you can disable the cache for rbd, if you have no 
> coordination protocol you'll need to do the same on the iSCSI-side. 
> 
> I believe when you do that it will be slower, but it might work. 
> 
> > Would the suggested setup not work for my requirements? 
> > 
> 
> It depends on VMWare if they allow such a setup. 
> 
> Then there is an other thing. How do the VMWare machines coordinate which VM 
> they should be running ? 
> 
> I don't know VMWare but usually if you have some kind of clustering setup 
> you'll need to have a 'quorum'. 
> 
> A lot of times the quorum is handled by a quorum disk with the SCSI 
> coordiation protocols mentioned above. 
> 
> An other way to have a quorum is to have a majority voting system with an 
> un-even number of machines talking over the network. This is what Ceph 
> monitor nodes do. 
> 
> As an example of a clustering system that allows it to be used without a 
> quorum disk with only 2 machines talking over the network is Linux Pacemaker. 
> When something bad happends, one machine will just turn off the power of the 
> other machine to prevent things going wrong (this is called STONITH). 
> 
> > Andrei 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > 
> > From: "Leen Besselink" <[email protected]> 
> > To: [email protected] 
> > Sent: Thursday, 8 May, 2014 9:35:21 PM 
> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] NFS over CEPH - best practice 
> > 
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:24:17AM +0200, Gilles Mocellin wrote: 
> > > Le 07/05/2014 15:23, Vlad Gorbunov a écrit : 
> > > >It's easy to install tgtd with ceph support. ubuntu 12.04 for example: 
> > > > 
> > > >Connect ceph-extras repo: 
> > > >echo deb http://ceph.com/packages/ceph-extras/debian $(lsb_release 
> > > >-sc) main | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ceph-extras.list 
> > > > 
> > > >Install tgtd with rbd support: 
> > > >apt-get update 
> > > >apt-get install tgt 
> > > > 
> > > >It's important to disable the rbd cache on tgtd host. Set in 
> > > >/etc/ceph/ceph.conf: 
> > > >[client] 
> > > >rbd_cache = false 
> > > [...] 
> > > 
> > > Hello, 
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > > Without cache on the tgtd side, it should be possible to have 
> > > failover and load balancing (active/avtive) multipathing. 
> > > Have you tested multipath load balancing in this scenario ? 
> > > 
> > > If it's reliable, it opens a new way for me to do HA storage with iSCSI ! 
> > > 
> > 
> > I have a question, what is your use case ? 
> > 
> > Do you need SCSI-3 persistent reservations so multiple machines can use the 
> > same LUN at the same time ? 
> > 
> > Because in that case I think tgtd won't help you. 
> > 
> > Have a good day, 
> > Leen. 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > ceph-users mailing list 
> > [email protected] 
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com 
> > 
> _______________________________________________ 
> ceph-users mailing list 
> [email protected] 
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com 
> 

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to