similar to: ZFS High Availability

Hello everyone, I am currently running Dovecot as a high performance solution to a particular kind of problem. My userbase is small, but it murders email servers. The volume is moderate, but message retention requirements are stringent, to put it nicely. Many users receive a high volume of email traffic, but want to keep every message, and *search* them. This produces mail accounts up to

Hi, Partly because I never like straightforward solutions, I am looking to implement a non-standard failover system that owes its origins to mixing RAID 5 with some beer. The idea is to have machines A, B and C, configured as follows: 1) Any given process is running on TWO machines at the same time. If a process or machine fails, then a new backup is started on the third machine. There is thus

I don't think this is sufficient. If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get confused. I think that we should only make primary visible after guest acked the backup feature bit. And on reset or when backup is cleared in some other way, unplug the primary. Something like the below will do the

I don't think this is sufficient. If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get confused. I think that we should only make primary visible after guest acked the backup feature bit. And on reset or when backup is cleared in some other way, unplug the primary. Something like the below will do the

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018?06?05? 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I don't think this is sufficient. > > > > If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without > > support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get > > confused. > > > > I think that we

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018?06?05? 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I don't think this is sufficient. > > > > If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without > > support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get > > confused. > > > > I think that we

On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018?06?12? 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> On 2018?06?05? 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> I don't think this is sufficient. >>>> >>>> If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest

On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018?06?12? 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> On 2018?06?05? 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> I don't think this is sufficient. >>>> >>>> If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018?06?13? 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2018?06?12? 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > >

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:44PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote: > Good to see this discussion going. I share the same feeling that the > decision of plugging the primary (passthrough) should only be made > until guest driver acknowledges DRIVER_OK and _F_STANDBY. > Architecturally this intelligence should be baken to QEMU itself > rather than moving up to management stack, such as

On 4/30/2018 12:20 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>> Now I try to change mac of the failover master: >>> [root at test1 ~]# ip link set ens3 addr 52:54:00:b2:a7:f3 >>> RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported >>> >>> That I did expect to work. I would expect this would change the mac of >>> the master and both standby and primary slaves.

On 4/30/2018 12:20 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>> Now I try to change mac of the failover master: >>> [root at test1 ~]# ip link set ens3 addr 52:54:00:b2:a7:f3 >>> RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported >>> >>> That I did expect to work. I would expect this would change the mac of >>> the master and both standby and primary slaves.

On 6/12/2018 4:34 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:02:45PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >> On 6/11/2018 7:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2018?06?12? 01:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:09:54PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 06:07:18PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2018?06?13? 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > >> > On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > >> > > >

Speaking of ZFS, got a weird one: we were testing ZFS (ok, it was on Ubuntu, but that shouldn't make a difference, I would think). and I've got a zpool z2. I pulled one drive, to simulate a drive failure, and it rebuilt with the hot spare. Then I pushed the drive I'd pulled back in... and it does not look like I've got a hot spare. zpool status shows config: NAME STATE

On 6/11/2018 7:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 2018?06?12? 01:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:09:54PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote: >>>> This feature bit can be used by hypervisor to indicate virtio_net device to >>>> act as a standby for another

On 6/11/2018 7:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 2018?06?12? 01:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:09:54PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote: >>>> This feature bit can be used by hypervisor to indicate virtio_net device to >>>> act as a standby for another

I've been pointed to this discussion (which I had missed previously) and I'm getting a headache. Let me first summarize how I understand how this feature is supposed to work, then I'll respond to some individual points. The basic idea is to enable guests to migrate seamlessly, while still making it possible for them to use a passed-through device for more performance etc. The means to

On 5/2/2018 12:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:20:26AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> On 4/30/2018 12:20 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> Now I try to change mac of the failover master: >>>>> [root at test1 ~]# ip link set ens3 addr 52:54:00:b2:a7:f3 >>>>> RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:57:11 -0700 Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Cornelia. With questions below, I > think you raised really good points, some of which I don't have answer > yet and would also like to explore here. > > First off, I don't want to push the discussion to the extreme at this > point, or sell anything