There are races, e.g. do snapshot and delete at the same time, backup and
delete at the same time, etc. The race windows are pretty tight on ceph but
they are there. It is worse on some other backends

On 8 January 2015 at 17:50, Jordan Pittier <jordan.pitt...@scality.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
> >Some people apparently use the ‘host’ option in cinder.conf to make the
> hosts indistinguishable, but this creates problems in other places.
> I use shared storage mounted on several cinder-volume nodes, with "host"
> flag set the same everywhere. Never ran into problems so far. Could you
> elaborate on "this creates problems in other places" please ?
>
> Thanks !
> Jordan
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Arne Wiebalck <arne.wieba...@cern.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hmm. Not sure how widespread installations with multiple Ceph backends
>> are where the
>> Cinder hosts have access to only one of the backends (which is what you
>> assume, right?)
>> But, yes, if the volume type names are also the same (is that also needed
>> for this to be a
>> problem?), this will be an issue ...
>>
>>  So, how about providing the information the scheduler does not have by
>> introducing an
>> additional tag to identify ‘equivalent’ backends, similar to the way some
>> people already
>> use the ‘host’ option?
>>
>>  Thanks!
>>  Arne
>>
>>
>>  On 08 Jan 2015, at 15:11, Duncan Thomas <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  The problem is that the scheduler doesn't currently have enough info to
>> know which backends are 'equivalent' and which aren't. e.g. If you have 2
>> ceph clusters as cinder backends, they are indistinguishable from each
>> other.
>>
>> On 8 January 2015 at 12:14, Arne Wiebalck <arne.wieba...@cern.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The fact that volume requests (in particular deletions) are coupled with
>>> certain Cinder hosts is not ideal from an operational perspective:
>>> if the node has meanwhile disappeared, e.g. retired, the deletion gets
>>> stuck and can only be unblocked by changing the database. Some
>>> people apparently use the ‘host’ option in cinder.conf to make the hosts
>>> indistinguishable, but this creates problems in other places.
>>>
>>> From what I see, even for backends that would support it (such as Ceph),
>>> Cinder currently does not provide means to ensure that any of
>>> the hosts capable of performing a volume operation would be assigned the
>>> request in case the original/desired one is no more available,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> If that is correct, how about changing the scheduling of delete
>>> operation to use the same logic as create operations, that is pick any of
>>> the
>>> available hosts, rather than the one which created a volume in the first
>>> place (for backends where that is possible, of course)?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>  Arne
>>>
>>> —
>>> Arne Wiebalck
>>> CERN IT
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duncan Thomas
>>  _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Duncan Thomas
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to