Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Cinder with remote LVM proposal

2017-02-01 Thread Marco Marino 
Hi Erlon, hi Philipp thank you for your answers.
I will try to explain with a real case:

@Erlon: I have 2 nodes that works as a SAN with targetcli and DRBD for a
raid over network. This cluster can be seen as an "ISCSI node".
Furthermore, I have 2 nodes with openstack-cinder-volume (with pacemaker).
Basically I have N iscsi devices here (from the ISCSI node) and on top of
those there is the cinder-volumes VG.
So, when a new volume in cinder is created, a new loigical volume will be
allocated in the cinder-volumes group. Using my solution I can merge the
cinder-volumes VG in the ISCSI node and move (for example) the
openstack-cinder-volume service on the controller because less power is
needed here.
My ideas:
- When I need to upgrade openstack, I can have problems with
drbd/kernel/targetcli packages that I'd like to avoid during an openstack
upgrade.
- WIth this solution I can think to remove the openstack-cinder-volume
dedicated node (in small environments)
- I thought that this can be a support in the open source world for the
people who built a san with drbd + lvm + targetcli
Anyway, I only tried to propose a new idea

@Philipp: thank you, but at the moment drbd9 has little documentation and
the solution with openstack is really lacking of guides/tutorials/examples
and performance analysis. Actually I'm using drbd 8.4.6 in production and
without a lot of tests and examples I won't switch to the next version.


Thank you
Marco


2017-02-01 12:39 GMT+01:00 Philipp Marek :

> Hi everybody,
>
> > > Hi, I'd like to know if it is possible to use openstack-cinder-volume
> with
> > > a remote LVM. This could be a new feature proposal if the idea is good.
> > > More precisely, I'm thinking a solution where openstack-cinder-volume
> runs
> > > on a dedicated node and LVM on another node (called "storage node").
> On
> > > the storage node I need to have a volume group (normally named
> > > cinder-volumes) and the targetcli package, so the iscsi_ip_address in
> > > cinder.conf should be an address associated with the storage node.
> > > Advantages of this solution are: 1) When I need to upgrade openstack I
> can
> > > leave out the storage node from the process (because it has only LVM
> and
> > > targetcli or another daemon used for iscsi targets). 2) Down on the
> > > cinder-volume node cannot creates problems to the iscsi part exposed to
> > > vms. 3) Support to the open source world in cinder: LVM is the common
> > > solution for cinder in low budget environment but performance are good
> if
> > > the storage node is powerful enough
> > >
> > > In my idea, the "interface" between openstack-cinder-volume and lvm
> can be
> > > SSH. Basically we need to create/remove/manage logical volumes on a
> remote
> > > node and the same for the iscsi targets
> > >
> > > Please, let me know if this can be a valid solution.
> > What you are proposing is almost like to create an LVM storage box. I
> > haven't seen any real benefit from the advantages you listed. For 1), the
> > same problems you can have upgrading the services within the same node
> will
> > happen if the LVM services are not in the same host. For, 2), now you
> have
> > 2 nodes to manage instead of 1, which double the changes of having
> > problems. And for 3), I really didn't get the advantage related to the
> > solution you are proposing.
> >
> > If you have real deployments cases where this could help (or if there are
> > other people interested), please list it here so people can see more
> > concrete benefits of using this solution.
>
> please let me suggest to look at the DRBD Cinder driver that's already
> upstream.
> Basically, this allows to use one or more storage boxes, and to export
> their storage (via LV and DRBD) to the Compute nodes.
>
> If you're using the DRBD protocol instead of iSCSI (and configure the DRBD
> Cinder driver to store 2 copies of the data), you'll even benefit from
> redundancy - you can maintain one of the storage nodes while the other is
> serving data, and (as soon as the data is synchronized up again) then do
> your maintenance on the other storage node.
>
>
> See here for more details:
> http://www.drbd.org/en/doc/users-guide-90/ch-openstack
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Cinder with remote LVM proposal

2017-02-01 Thread Philipp Marek 
Hi everybody,

> > Hi, I'd like to know if it is possible to use openstack-cinder-volume with
> > a remote LVM. This could be a new feature proposal if the idea is good.
> > More precisely, I'm thinking a solution where openstack-cinder-volume runs
> > on a dedicated node and LVM on another node (called "storage node").  On
> > the storage node I need to have a volume group (normally named
> > cinder-volumes) and the targetcli package, so the iscsi_ip_address in
> > cinder.conf should be an address associated with the storage node.
> > Advantages of this solution are: 1) When I need to upgrade openstack I can
> > leave out the storage node from the process (because it has only LVM and
> > targetcli or another daemon used for iscsi targets). 2) Down on the
> > cinder-volume node cannot creates problems to the iscsi part exposed to
> > vms. 3) Support to the open source world in cinder: LVM is the common
> > solution for cinder in low budget environment but performance are good if
> > the storage node is powerful enough
> >
> > In my idea, the "interface" between openstack-cinder-volume and lvm can be
> > SSH. Basically we need to create/remove/manage logical volumes on a remote
> > node and the same for the iscsi targets
> >
> > Please, let me know if this can be a valid solution.
> What you are proposing is almost like to create an LVM storage box. I
> haven't seen any real benefit from the advantages you listed. For 1), the
> same problems you can have upgrading the services within the same node will
> happen if the LVM services are not in the same host. For, 2), now you have
> 2 nodes to manage instead of 1, which double the changes of having
> problems. And for 3), I really didn't get the advantage related to the
> solution you are proposing.
> 
> If you have real deployments cases where this could help (or if there are
> other people interested), please list it here so people can see more
> concrete benefits of using this solution.

please let me suggest to look at the DRBD Cinder driver that's already 
upstream.
Basically, this allows to use one or more storage boxes, and to export 
their storage (via LV and DRBD) to the Compute nodes.

If you're using the DRBD protocol instead of iSCSI (and configure the DRBD 
Cinder driver to store 2 copies of the data), you'll even benefit from 
redundancy - you can maintain one of the storage nodes while the other is 
serving data, and (as soon as the data is synchronized up again) then do 
your maintenance on the other storage node.


See here for more details:
http://www.drbd.org/en/doc/users-guide-90/ch-openstack

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Cinder with remote LVM proposal

2017-02-01 Thread Erlon Cruz 
Hi Marco,

What you are proposing is almost like to create an LVM storage box. I
haven't seen any real benefit from the advantages you listed. For 1), the
same problems you can have upgrading the services within the same node will
happen if the LVM services are not in the same host. For, 2), now you have
2 nodes to manage instead of 1, which double the changes of having
problems. And for 3), I really didn't get the advantage related to the
solution you are proposing.

If you have real deployments cases where this could help (or if there are
other people interested), please list it here so people can see more
concrete benefits of using this solution.

Erlon

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Marco Marino  wrote:

> Hi, I'd like to know if it is possible to use openstack-cinder-volume with
> a remote LVM. This could be a new feature proposal if the idea is good.
> More precisely, I'm thinking a solution where openstack-cinder-volume runs
> on a dedicated node and LVM on another node (called "storage node").  On
> the storage node I need to have a volume group (normally named
> cinder-volumes) and the targetcli package, so the iscsi_ip_address in
> cinder.conf should be an address associated with the storage node.
> Advantages of this solution are: 1) When I need to upgrade openstack I can
> leave out the storage node from the process (because it has only LVM and
> targetcli or another daemon used for iscsi targets). 2) Down on the
> cinder-volume node cannot creates problems to the iscsi part exposed to
> vms. 3) Support to the open source world in cinder: LVM is the common
> solution for cinder in low budget environment but performance are good if
> the storage node is powerful enough
>
> In my idea, the "interface" between openstack-cinder-volume and lvm can be
> SSH. Basically we need to create/remove/manage logical volumes on a remote
> node and the same for the iscsi targets
>
> Please, let me know if this can be a valid solution.
>
> Thank you
> Marco
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [cinder] Cinder with remote LVM proposal

2017-02-01 Thread Marco Marino 
Hi, I'd like to know if it is possible to use openstack-cinder-volume with
a remote LVM. This could be a new feature proposal if the idea is good.
More precisely, I'm thinking a solution where openstack-cinder-volume runs
on a dedicated node and LVM on another node (called "storage node").  On
the storage node I need to have a volume group (normally named
cinder-volumes) and the targetcli package, so the iscsi_ip_address in
cinder.conf should be an address associated with the storage node.
Advantages of this solution are: 1) When I need to upgrade openstack I can
leave out the storage node from the process (because it has only LVM and
targetcli or another daemon used for iscsi targets). 2) Down on the
cinder-volume node cannot creates problems to the iscsi part exposed to
vms. 3) Support to the open source world in cinder: LVM is the common
solution for cinder in low budget environment but performance are good if
the storage node is powerful enough

In my idea, the "interface" between openstack-cinder-volume and lvm can be
SSH. Basically we need to create/remove/manage logical volumes on a remote
node and the same for the iscsi targets

Please, let me know if this can be a valid solution.

Thank you
Marco
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev