Hari, Since this feature is dependent on the hypervisor , could you please list the hypervisors we are planning to support this feature ?
-Thanks Sangeetha -----Original Message----- From: Hari Kannan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target Not really.. we don't support it today, as I understand.. Hari -----Original Message----- From: Alex Huang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 12:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target Hari, Is there a requirement on a ebs volume created for one hypervisor can be attached to on another hypervisor? Or once created, it can only be attach to the same hypervisor? --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target > > 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:21 PM > To: [email protected] > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:35 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:51 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Zone-wide primary storage target > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:46 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > 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
