qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH COLO v3 01/14] docs: block replication's descrip


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH COLO v3 01/14] docs: block replication's description
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 11:39:51 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Am 08.05.2015 um 10:42 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:23:56PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Stefan Hajnoczi (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:36:35AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 24/04/2015 11:38, Wen Congyang wrote:
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> > That can be done with drive-mirror.  But I think it's too early 
> > > > >> > for that.
> > > > > Do you mean use drive-mirror instead of quorum?
> > > > 
> > > > Only before starting up a new secondary.  Basically you do a migration
> > > > with non-shared storage, and then start the secondary in colo mode.
> > > > 
> > > > But it's only for the failover case.  Quorum (or a new block/colo.c
> > > > driver or filter) is fine for normal colo operation.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps this patch series should mirror the Secondary's disk to a Backup
> > > Secondary so that the system can be protected very quickly after
> > > failover.
> > > 
> > > I think anyone serious about fault tolerance would deploy a Backup
> > > Secondary, otherwise the system cannot survive two failures unless a
> > > human administrator is lucky/fast enough to set up a new Secondary.
> > 
> > I'd assumed that a higher level management layer would do the allocation
> > of a new secondary after the first failover, so no human need be involved.
> 
> That doesn't help, after the first failover is too late even if it's
> done by a program.  There should be no window during which the VM is
> unprotected.
> 
> People who want fault tolerance care about 9s of availability.  The VM
> must be protected on the new Primary as soon as the failover occurs,
> otherwise this isn't a serious fault tolerance solution.

If you're worried about two failures in a row, why wouldn't you be
worried about three in a row? I think if you really want more than one
backup to be ready, you shouldn't go to two, but to n.

Kevin

Attachment: pgpt2_8qkXmrZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]