Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP

2014-03-27 Thread Shlomi Sasson
LIO already support iser (starting kernel 3.10), and its implementation can 
accept rdma or tcp in the same target

-Original Message-
From: Eric Harney [mailto:ehar...@redhat.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 20:22
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support 
other iSCSI transports besides TCP

On 03/25/2014 11:07 AM, Shlomi Sasson wrote:

 I am not sure what will be the right approach to handle this, I already have 
 the code, should I open a bug or blueprint to track this issue?
 
 Best Regards,
 Shlomi
 


A blueprint around this would be appreciated.  I have had similar thoughts 
around this myself, that these should be options for the LVM iSCSI driver 
rather than different drivers.

These options also mirror how we can choose between tgt/iet/lio in the LVM 
driver today.  I've been assuming that RDMA support will be added to the LIO 
driver there at some point, and this seems like a nice way to enable that.

___
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


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP

2014-03-27 Thread Shlomi Sasson
Of course I'm aware of that.. I'm the one who pushed it there in the first 
place :)
But it was not the best way to handle this.. I think that the right/better 
approach is as suggested.

I'm planning to remove the existing ISERDriver code, this will eliminate 
significant code and class duplication, and will work with all the iSCSI 
vendors who supports both tcp and rdma without the need to modify their plug-in 
drivers.


From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 22:47
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support 
other iSCSI transports besides TCP



On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Eric Harney 
ehar...@redhat.commailto:ehar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:07 AM, Shlomi Sasson wrote:

 I am not sure what will be the right approach to handle this, I already have 
 the code, should I open a bug or blueprint to track this issue?

 Best Regards,
 Shlomi


A blueprint around this would be appreciated.  I have had similar
thoughts around this myself, that these should be options for the LVM
iSCSI driver rather than different drivers.

These options also mirror how we can choose between tgt/iet/lio in the
LVM driver today.  I've been assuming that RDMA support will be added to
the LIO driver there at some point, and this seems like a nice way to
enable that.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

I'm open to improving this, but I am curious you know there's an ISER subclass 
in iscsi for Cinder currently right?
http://goo.gl/kQJoDO
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP

2014-03-26 Thread Shlomi Sasson
Hi Ramy,

There is quite a bit of difference between FC and iSCSI (e.g. iqn vs WWN ..)
While iSER is just an alternative iSCSI transport, and use the exact same tools 
on the initiator and target like iSCSI/TCP
Most iSER capable iSCSI targets don't even have a separate configuration for 
TCP or RDMA, and would accept both transports options on a given logical iSCSI 
target (why we don't need a different plug-ins for targets with exception of 
STGT)

On the initiator side the only difference between TCP and RDMA is in the 
interface flag (--interface=[iface])
e.g. iscsiadm -m discoverydb -t st -p ip:port -I iser --discover

so we don't need a full new class to propagate a simple flag, and rather make 
this a simple parameter
we also though of modifying the operation that default_rdma would mean try 
RDMA and if it fails fall back to TCP, to simplify operations.

Shlomi

From: Asselin, Ramy [mailto:ramy.asse...@hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 17:55
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support 
other iSCSI transports besides TCP

Hi Shlomi,

Another solution to consider is to create a subclass per transport (iSCSI, 
iSER) which reference the same shared common code.
This is the solution used for the 3PAR iSCSI  FC transports. See these for 
reference:
cinder/volume/drivers/san/hp/hp_3par_common.py
cinder/volume/drivers/san/hp/hp_3par_fc.py
cinder/volume/drivers/san/hp/hp_3par_iscsi.py

Hope this helps.

Ramy

From: Shlomi Sasson [mailto:shlo...@mellanox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:07 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support other 
iSCSI transports besides TCP

Hi,

I want to share with the community the following challenge:
Currently, Vendors who have their iSCSI driver, and want to add RDMA transport 
(iSER), cannot leverage their existing plug-in which inherit from iSCSI
And must modify their driver or create an additional plug-in driver which 
inherit from iSER, and copy the exact same code.

Instead I believe a simpler approach is to add a new attribute to ISCSIDriver 
to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP, which will allow minimal changes 
to support iSER.
The existing ISERDriver code will be removed, this will eliminate significant 
code and class duplication, and will work with all the iSCSI vendors who 
supports both TCP and RDMA without the need to modify their plug-in drivers.

To achieve that both cinder  nova requires slight changes:
For cinder, I wish to add a  parameter called transport (default to iscsi) to 
distinguish between the transports and use the existing iscsi_ip_address 
parameter for any transport type connection.
For nova, I wish to add a parameter called default_rdma (default to false) to 
enable initiator side.
The outcome will avoid code duplication and the need to add more classes.

I am not sure what will be the right approach to handle this, I already have 
the code, should I open a bug or blueprint to track this issue?

Best Regards,
Shlomi

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


[openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Refactor ISCSIDriver to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP

2014-03-25 Thread Shlomi Sasson
Hi,

I want to share with the community the following challenge:
Currently, Vendors who have their iSCSI driver, and want to add RDMA transport 
(iSER), cannot leverage their existing plug-in which inherit from iSCSI
And must modify their driver or create an additional plug-in driver which 
inherit from iSER, and copy the exact same code.

Instead I believe a simpler approach is to add a new attribute to ISCSIDriver 
to support other iSCSI transports besides TCP, which will allow minimal changes 
to support iSER.
The existing ISERDriver code will be removed, this will eliminate significant 
code and class duplication, and will work with all the iSCSI vendors who 
supports both TCP and RDMA without the need to modify their plug-in drivers.

To achieve that both cinder  nova requires slight changes:
For cinder, I wish to add a  parameter called transport (default to iscsi) to 
distinguish between the transports and use the existing iscsi_ip_address 
parameter for any transport type connection.
For nova, I wish to add a parameter called default_rdma (default to false) to 
enable initiator side.
The outcome will avoid code duplication and the need to add more classes.

I am not sure what will be the right approach to handle this, I already have 
the code, should I open a bug or blueprint to track this issue?

Best Regards,
Shlomi

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