Re: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint

[Daniel Cho]

Hi Zhang,

Thanks for your help.
However, did you occur the error which the function qemu_hexdump in
colo-compare.c will crash the qemu process while doing operation with
network?

We are working on VM fault tolerance study and COLO function
evalutation first. Currently we did not have a confirmed plan on it.

Best regard,
Daniel Cho

Zhang, Chen <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月24日 週一 上午2:43寫道：

>
>
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Cho <address@hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:49 AM
> To: Zhang, Chen <address@hidden>
> Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>; Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>; 
> address@hidden; Jason Wang <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
>
>
>
> Hi Zhang,
>
>
>
> Thanks, I will configure on code for testing first.
>
> However, if you have free time, could you please send the patch file to us, 
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> OK, I will send this patch recently.
>
> By the way, can you share QNAP’s plan and status for COLO?
>
>
>
> Best Regard,
>
> Daniel Cho
>
>
>
>
>
> Zhang, Chen <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月20日 週四 上午11:07寫道：
>
>
>
> On 2/18/2020 5:22 PM, Daniel Cho wrote:
>
> Hi Hailiang,
>
> Thanks for your help. If we have any problems we will contact you for your 
> favor.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Zhang,
>
>
>
> " If colo-compare got a primary packet without related secondary packet in a 
> certain time , it will automatically trigger checkpoint.  "
>
> As you said, the colo-compare will trigger checkpoint, but does it need to 
> limit checkpoint times?
>
> There is a problem about doing many checkpoints while we use fio to random 
> write files. Then it will cause low throughput on PVM.
>
> Is this situation is normal on COLO?
>
>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> The checkpoint time is designed to be user adjustable based on user 
> environment(workload/network status/business conditions...).
>
> In net/colo-compare.c
>
> /* TODO: Should be configurable */
> #define REGULAR_PACKET_CHECK_MS 3000
>
> If you need, I can send a patch for this issue. Make users can change the 
> value by QMP and qemu monitor commands.
>
> Thanks
>
> Zhang Chen
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Daniel Cho
>
>
>
> Zhang, Chen <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月17日 週一 下午1:36寫道：
>
>
>
> On 2/15/2020 11:35 AM, Daniel Cho wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree with you, it does need a timeout.
>
>
>
> Hi Daniel and Dave,
>
> Current colo-compare already have the timeout mechanism.
>
> Named packet_check_timer,  It will scan primary packet queue to make sure all 
> the primary packet not stay too long time.
>
> If colo-compare got a primary packet without related secondary packet in a 
> certain time , it will automatic trigger checkpoint.
>
> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/net/colo-compare.c#L847
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Zhang Chen
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Hailiang,
>
>
>
> We base on qemu-4.1.0 for using COLO feature, in your patch, we found a lot 
> of difference  between your version and ours.
>
> Could you give us a latest release version which is close your developing 
> code?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Daniel Cho
>
>
>
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月13日 週四 下午6:38寫道：
>
> * Daniel Cho (address@hidden) wrote:
> > Hi Hailiang,
> >
> > 1.
> >     OK, we will try the patch
> > “0001-COLO-Optimize-memory-back-up-process.patch”,
> > and thanks for your help.
> >
> > 2.
> >     We understand the reason to compare PVM and SVM's packet. However, the
> > empty of SVM's packet queue might happened on setting COLO feature and SVM
> > broken.
> >
> > On situation 1 ( setting COLO feature ):
> >     We could force do checkpoint after setting COLO feature finish, then it
> > will protect the state of PVM and SVM . As the Zhang Chen said.
> >
> > On situation 2 ( SVM broken ):
> >     COLO will do failover for PVM, so it might not cause any wrong on PVM.
> >
> > However, those situations are our views, so there might be a big difference
> > between reality and our views.
> > If we have any wrong views and opinions, please let us know, and correct
> > us.
>
> It does need a timeout; the SVM being broken or being in a state where
> it never sends the corresponding packet (because of a state difference)
> can happen and COLO needs to timeout when the packet hasn't arrived
> after a while and trigger the checkpoint.
>
> Dave
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel Cho
> >
> > Zhang, Chen <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月13日 週四 上午10:17寫道：
> >
> > > Add cc Jason Wang, he is a network expert.
> > >
> > > In case some network things goes wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Zhang Chen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Zhang, Chen
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 13, 2020 10:10 AM
> > > *To:* 'Zhanghailiang' <address@hidden>; Daniel Cho <
> > > address@hidden>
> > > *Cc:* Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>; address@hidden
> > > *Subject:* RE: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For the issue 2:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > COLO need use the network packets to confirm PVM and SVM in the same 
> > > state,
> > >
> > > Generally speaking, we can’t send PVM packets without compared with SVM
> > > packets.
> > >
> > > But to prevent jamming, I think COLO can do force checkpoint and send the
> > > PVM packets in this case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Zhang Chen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:45 AM
> > > *To:* Daniel Cho <address@hidden>
> > > *Cc:* Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>; address@hidden;
> > > Zhang, Chen <address@hidden>
> > > *Subject:* RE: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.       After re-walked through the codes, yes, you are right, actually,
> > > after the first migration, we will keep dirty log on in primary side,
> > >
> > > And only send the dirty pages in PVM to SVM. The ram cache in secondary
> > > side is always a backup of PVM, so we don’t have to
> > >
> > > Re-send the none-dirtied pages.
> > >
> > > The reason why the first checkpoint takes longer time is we have to backup
> > > the whole VM’s ram into ram cache, that is colo_init_ram_cache().
> > >
> > > It is time consuming, but I have optimized in the second patch
> > > “0001-COLO-Optimize-memory-back-up-process.patch” which you can find in my
> > > previous reply.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Besides, I found that, In my previous reply “We can only copy the pages
> > > that dirtied by PVM and SVM in last checkpoint.”,
> > >
> > > We have done this optimization in current upstream codes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2．I don’t quite understand this question. For COLO, we always need both
> > > network packets of PVM’s and SVM’s to compare before send this packets to
> > > client.
> > >
> > > It depends on this to decide whether or not PVM and SVM are in same state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > hailiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Daniel Cho [mailto:address@hidden <address@hidden>]
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:37 PM
> > > *To:* Zhang, Chen <address@hidden>
> > > *Cc:* Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>; Dr. David Alan
> > > Gilbert <address@hidden>; address@hidden
> > > *Subject:* Re: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Hailiang,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your replaying and explain in detail.
> > >
> > > We will try to use the attachments to enhance memory copy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, we have some questions for your replying.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.  As you said, "for each checkpoint, we have to send the whole PVM's
> > > pages To SVM", why the only first checkpoint will takes more pause time?
> > >
> > > In our observing, the first checkpoint will take more time for pausing,
> > > then other checkpoints will takes a few time for pausing. Does it means
> > > only the first checkpoint will send the whole pages to SVM, and the other
> > > checkpoints send the dirty pages to SVM for reloading?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. We notice the COLO-COMPARE component will stuck the packet until
> > > receive packets from PVM and SVM, as this rule, when we add the
> > > COLO-COMPARE to PVM, its network will stuck until SVM start. So it is an
> > > other issue to make PVM stuck while setting COLO feature. With this issue,
> > > could we let colo-compare to pass the PVM's packet when the SVM's packet
> > > queue is empty? Then, the PVM's network won't stock, and "if PVM runs
> > > firstly, it still need to wait for The network packets from SVM to
> > > compare before send it to client side" won't happened either.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regard,
> > >
> > > Daniel Cho
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Zhang, Chen <address@hidden> 於 2020年2月12日 週三 下午1:45寫道：
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 11:18 AM
> > > > To: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>; Daniel Cho
> > > > <address@hidden>; Zhang, Chen <address@hidden>
> > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: RE: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Dave,
> > > >
> > > > I'll reply here directly.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert [mailto:address@hidden]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 1:48 AM
> > > > To: Daniel Cho <address@hidden>; address@hidden;
> > > > Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>
> > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: The issues about architecture of the COLO checkpoint
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > cc'ing in COLO people:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Daniel Cho (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >      We have some issues about setting COLO feature. Hope somebody
> > > > > could give us some advice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Issue 1:
> > > > >      We dynamic to set COLO feature for PVM(2 core, 16G memory),  but
> > > > > the Primary VM will pause a long time(based on memory size) for
> > > > > waiting SVM start. Does it have any idea to reduce the pause time?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we do have some ideas to optimize this downtime.
> > > >
> > > > The main problem for current version is, for each checkpoint, we have to
> > > > send the whole PVM's pages
> > > > To SVM, and then copy the whole VM's state into SVM from ram cache, in
> > > > this process, we need both of them be paused.
> > > > Just as you said, the downtime is based on memory size.
> > > >
> > > > So firstly, we need to reduce the sending data while do checkpoint,
> > > actually,
> > > > we can migrate parts of PVM's dirty pages in background
> > > > While both of VMs are running. And then we load these pages into ram
> > > > cache (backup memory) in SVM temporarily. While do checkpoint,
> > > > We just send the last dirty pages of PVM to slave side and then copy the
> > > ram
> > > > cache into SVM. Further on, we don't have
> > > > To send the whole PVM's dirty pages, we can only send the pages that
> > > > dirtied by PVM or SVM during two checkpoints. (Because
> > > > If one page is not dirtied by both PVM and SVM, the data of this pages
> > > will
> > > > keep same in SVM, PVM, backup memory). This method can reduce
> > > > the time that consumed in sending data.
> > > >
> > > > For the second problem, we can reduce the memory copy by two methods,
> > > > first one, we don't have to copy the whole pages in ram cache,
> > > > We can only copy the pages that dirtied by PVM and SVM in last
> > > checkpoint.
> > > > Second, we can use userfault missing function to reduce the
> > > > Time consumed in memory copy. (For the second time, in theory, we can
> > > > reduce time consumed in memory into ms level).
> > > >
> > > > You can find the first optimization in attachment, it is based on an old
> > > qemu
> > > > version (qemu-2.6), it should not be difficult to rebase it
> > > > Into master or your version. And please feel free to send the new
> > > version if
> > > > you want into community ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Hailiang!
> > > By the way, Do you have time to push the patches to upstream?
> > > I think this is a better and faster option.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Zhang Chen
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Issue 2:
> > > > >      In
> > > > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/migration/colo.c#L503,
> > > > > could we move start_vm() before Line 488? Because at first checkpoint
> > > > > PVM will wait for SVM's reply, it cause PVM stop for a while.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, that makes no sense, because if PVM runs firstly, it still need to
> > > wait for
> > > > The network packets from SVM to compare before send it to client side.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Hailiang
> > > >
> > > > >      We set the COLO feature on running VM, so we hope the running VM
> > > > > could continuous service for users.
> > > > > Do you have any suggestions for those issues?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Daniel Cho
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
> > >
> > >
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK