[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [libvirt] feature suggestion: migration network
- From: Mark Wu <wudxw linux vnet ibm com>
- To: Dan Kenigsberg <danken redhat com>
- Cc: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul redhat com>, Simon Grinberg <sgrinber redhat com>, libvir-list redhat com, arch ovirt org, Yuval M <yuvalme gmail com>, Limor Gavish <lgavish gmail com>
- Subject: Re: [libvirt] feature suggestion: migration network
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:31:48 +0800
On 01/10/2013 08:00 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:45:42AM +0800, Mark Wu wrote:
On 01/08/2013 10:46 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On 08/01/13 15:04, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
There's talk about this for ages, so it's time to have proper discussion
and a feature page about it: let us have a "migration" network role, and
use such networks to carry migration data
When Engine requests to migrate a VM from one node to another, the VM
state (Bios, IO devices, RAM) is transferred over a TCP/IP connection
that is opened from the source qemu process to the destination qemu.
Currently, destination qemu listens for the incoming connection on the
management IP address of the destination host. This has serious
downsides: a "migration storm" may choke the destination's management
interface; migration is plaintext and ovirtmgmt includes Engine which
sits may sit the node cluster.
With this feature, a cluster administrator may grant the "migration"
role to one of the cluster networks. Engine would use that network's IP
address on the destination host when it requests a migration of a VM.
With proper network setup, migration data would be separated to that
=== Benefit to oVirt ===
* Users would be able to define and dedicate a separate network for
migration. Users that need quick migration would use nics with high
bandwidth. Users who want to cap the bandwidth consumed by migration
could define a migration network over nics with bandwidth limitation.
* Migration data can be limited to a separate network, that has no
layer-2 access from Engine
=== Vdsm ===
The "migrate" verb should be extended with an additional parameter,
specifying the address that the remote qemu process should listen on. A
new argument is to be added to the currently-defined migration
* vmId: UUID
* dst: management address of destination host
* dstparams: hibernation volumes definition
* mode: migration/hibernation
* method: rotten legacy
* ''New'': migration uri, according to
such as tcp://<ip of migration network on remote node>
=== Engine ===
As usual, complexity lies here, and several changes are required:
1. Network definition.
1.1 A new network role - not unlike "display network" should be
added.Only one migration network should be defined on a cluster.
1.2 If none is defined, the legacy "use ovirtmgmt for migration"
behavior would apply.
1.3 A migration network is more likely to be a ''required'' network, but
a user may opt for non-required. He may face unpleasant
surprises if he
wants to migrate his machine, but no candidate host has the network
1.4 The "migration" role can be granted or taken on-the-fly, when hosts
are active, as long as there are no currently-migrating VMs.
2.1 when deciding which host should be used for automatic
migration, take into account the existence and availability of the
migration network on the destination host.
2.2 For manual migration, let user migrate a VM to a host with no
migration network - if the admin wants to keep jamming the
management network with migration traffic, let her.
3. VdsBroker migration verb.
3.1 For the a modern cluster level, with migration network defined on
the destination host, an additional ''miguri'' parameter
should be added
to the "migrate" command
Arch mailing list
Arch ovirt org
How is the authentication of the peers handled? Do we need a cert
per each source/destination logical interface?
In my understanding, using a separate migration network doesn't
change the current peers authentication. We still use the URI
''qemu+tls://remoeHost/system' to connect the target libvirt service
if ssl enabled, and the remote host should be the ip address of
management interface. But we can choose other interfaces except the
manage interface to transport the migration data. We just change the
migrateURI, so the current authentication mechanism should still
work for this new feature.
vdsm-vdsm and libvirt-libvirt communication is authenticated, but I am
not sure at all that qemu-qemu communication is.
AFAIK, there's not authentication between qemu-qemu communications.
After qemu is sprung up on the destination with
-incoming <some ip>:<some port> , anything with access to that
address could hijack the process. Our migrateURI starts with "tcp://"
Dest libvirtd starts qemu with listening on that address/port, and
qemu will close the listening socket on <some ip>:<some port> as soon as
the src host
connects to it successfully. So it just listens in a very small
window, but still possible to be
hijacked. We could use iptables to only open the access to src host
dynamically on migration for secure.
with all the consequences of this. That a good reason to make sure
<some ip> has as limited access as possible
But maybe I'm wrong here, and libvir-list can show me the light.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]