Hi Edison
I don't think we have the option of saying that if you want this feature, a
zone has to have only one hypervisor type - not only do we have customer(s)
with more than one hyperisor type in a zone, many customers will state that
this is their eventual goal to provide differentiated level of service (VMware
for "gold", XS for silver etc.) - also, the UI workflow, error checking etc.
changes may be pervasive - plus, this is good for demos :-) so, I cant imagine
we could say that this features means you cant have a heterogeneous zone, if
that is what you are saying..
Regarding " vmware has the limitation on how many data stores can be attached
to a vcenter" - can you please elaborate how it impacts this feature?
Hari
-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:21 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target
Don't get things tooo complicated, let's make the simple thing work:
One hypervisor in one zone, with one or multiple zone-wide primary storages.
Without any special configurations, NFS/ceph + KVM can work under this
configuration.
If there are storage providers which can provide per volume per ISCSI LUN in a
scalable way, then XS/KVM can work under this configuration. E.g. for Xs, each
volume will become a SR, XS should support it? So we can add two hypervisors in
one zone, with multiple zone-wide storages.
I heard of that, vmware has the limitation on how many data stores can be
attached to a vcenter. If that's the case, then we may have problems to support
this feature for VMware.
Then, if admin just adds a Vmware cluster and kvm/XS cluster into one zone,
with both cluster-wide and zone-wide primary storages, what can we do?
1. If the storage allocator is smart enough, which helps to choose the right
storage to create volume in different situations. For example, the storage
allocator should know, oh, I can't create volume on a zone-wide storage, if the
hypervisor host is vmware etc.
2. or, admin is smart enough, which can tag the storages differently. E.g. VM
created on Vmware cluster can only be created on a storage tagged by "vmware",
if the disk offering has "vmware"
Tag, while VM created on KVM/XS, can be created on storages which has
"zone-wide" tag, etc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:35 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target
>
> Actually, let me clarify my original question, as re-reading it seems
> like it was misleading. Since all hypervisors don't support this
> capability (for example, XS doesn't), but a zone can be heterogeneous
> (from a hypervisor perspective), we need to support the capability to
> allow both zone-wide and cluster-only primary storage for any zone. I
> was wondering if a single cluster needs to support both, seems like it is a
> nice to have?
>
> Can you elaborate on the "disk offering" comment - are you suggesting
> we provide the end user the following choices
>
> a) local disk (we have this today already)
> b) zone wide (new - but we indirectly provide this capability already,
> as CS copies between primary stores if needed - but explicitly
> choosing this option means finding storage only on the shared store.
> If not chosen, preference is to place in shared store, if not possible
> place in cluster-specific primary store
>
> we still may not be able to avoid "double" copy - if we have to
> unmount the disk and remount on a cluster that does NOT have shared
> zone-wide primary store (or vice-versa), we still may have to resort
> to the double copy as is done today -
>
> Hari
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:51 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:46 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target
> >
> > Hi Alex, Chip,
> >
> > That's easy, I will change the name :-)
> >
> > @ Alex, I wasn't explicitly expecting co-existence of zone-wide
> > primary storage and a "local" (cluster-wide only) primary storage.
> > It seems you have assumed that would be a basic requirement, just
> > wanted
> to confirm.
>
> No I was giving one use case of where this capability might be useful.
> It's not a requirement.
>
> >
> > If that were the case, when a user requests a data volume, must
> > there be an option to choose or how will the allocation work? Will
> > data volumes always come out of the zone-wide storage and root
> > volume always is local or cluster- based primary storage?
>
> I assume those will go into the disk offering.
>
> >
> > Finally, should we allow multiple zone-wide primary storage?
>
> Yes. Every time we plan for only one, it has come back to bite us
> because physical limits of the resources. We can certainly present to
> the end user as one zone wide ebs like storage but how it's
> implemented underneath shouldn't be limited.
>
> --Alex
