Gluster users - Jul 2016 - [Gluster-devel] Non Shared Persistent Gluster Storage with Kubernetes

I have not gone through this implementation nor the new iscsi
implementation being worked on for 3.9 but I thought I'd share the design
behind a distributed iscsi implementation that we'd worked on some time
back based on the istgt code with a libgfapi hook.

The implementation used the idea of using one file to represent one block
(of a chosen size) thus allowing us to use gluster as the backend to store
these files while presenting a single block device of possibly infinite
size. We used a fixed file naming convention based on the block number
which allows the system to determine which file(s) needs to be operated on
for the requested byte offset. This gave us the advantage of automatically
accessing all of gluster's file based functionality underneath to provide a
fully distributed iscsi implementation.

Would this be similar to the new iscsi implementation thats being worked on
for 3.9?


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
> Prasanna explains how Gluster can be used as a distributed block store
> with Kubernetes cluster at:
>
>
>
https://pkalever.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/non-shared-persistent-gluster-storage-with-kubernetes
>
> Please note that the current version of kubernetes doesn't have support
> for multi-path.
> We will be sending out an updated version of this post once Kubernetes
> 1.3.0. is released.
>
> This is a follow-up post to:
> "Gluster Solution for Non Shared Persistent Storage in Docker
Container "
>
>
https://pkalever.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/gluster-solution-for-non-shared-persistent-storage-in-docker-container/
>
> We would love to hear your feedback to both of these solutions.
>
> --
> Pranith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160701/960b2a04/attachment.html>

On 07/01/2016 01:45 AM, B.K.Raghuram wrote:
> I have not gone through this implementation nor the new iscsi
> implementation being worked on for 3.9 but I thought I'd share the
> design behind a distributed iscsi implementation that we'd worked on
> some time back based on the istgt code with a libgfapi hook.
>
> The implementation used the idea of using one file to represent one
> block (of a chosen size) thus allowing us to use gluster as the backend
> to store these files while presenting a single block device of possibly
> infinite size. We used a fixed file naming convention based on the block
> number which allows the system to determine which file(s) needs to be
> operated on for the requested byte offset. This gave us the advantage of
> automatically accessing all of gluster's file based functionality
> underneath to provide a fully distributed iscsi implementation.
>
> Would this be similar to the new iscsi implementation thats being worked
> on for 3.9?
<will let others correct me here, but...>

Ultimately the idea would be to use sharding, as a part of the gluster 
volume graph, to distribute the blocks (or rather shard the blocks), 
rather than having the disk image on one distribute subvolume and hence 
scale disk sizes to the size of the cluster. Further, sharding should 
work well here, as this is a single client access case (or are we past 
that hurdle already?).

What this achieves is similar to the iSCSI implementation that you talk 
about, but gluster doing the block splitting and hence distribution, 
rather than the iSCSI implementation (istgt) doing the same.

< I did a cursory check on the blog post, but did not find a shard 
reference, so maybe others could pitch in here, if they know about the 
direction>

Further, in your original proposal, how do you maintain device 
properties, such as size of the device and used/free blocks? I ask about 
used and free, as that is an overhead to compute, if each block is 
maintained as a separate file by itself, or difficult to achieve 
consistency of the size and block update (as they are separate 
operations). Just curious.