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 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 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 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: > >> > > >

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

Under Solaris 10 on a 4 core Sun Ultra 40 with 20GB RAM, I am setting up a Sun StorageTek 2540 with 12 300GB 15K RPM SAS drives and connected via load-shared 4Gbit FC links. This week I have tried many different configurations, using firmware managed RAID, ZFS managed RAID, and with the controller cache enabled or disabled. My objective is to obtain the best single-file write performance.

Hi All, I''m new on ZFS, so I hope this isn''t too basic a question. I have a host where I setup ZFS. The Oracle DBAs did their thing and I know have a number of ZFS datasets with their respective clones and snapshots on serverA. I want to export some of the clones to serverB. Do I need to zone serverB to see the same LUNs as serverA? Or does it have to have preexisting,

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

The main motivation for this patch is to enable cloud service providers to provide an accelerated datapath to virtio-net enabled VMs in a transparent manner with no/minimal guest userspace changes. This also enables hypervisor controlled live migration to be supported with VMs that have direct attached SR-IOV VF devices. Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY that can be used

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:43:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote: > > The semantics are that the primary is always used if present in > > preference to standby. > OK. If this is the only semantics of what "standby" refers to in > general, that is fine. > > I just don't want to limit the failover/standby semantics to the > device model specifics, the

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