Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/2] fix #5779: rbd: allow to pass custom krbd map options

[Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>]

Am 25/10/2024 um 13:13 schrieb Friedrich Weber:
> When KRBD is enabled for an RBD storage, the storage plugin calls out
> to `rbd map` to map an RBD image as a block device on the host.
> Sometimes it might be necessary to pass custom options to `rbd map`.
> For instance, in some setups with Windows VMs, KRBD logs `bad
> crc/signature` and VMs performance is degraded unless the `rxbounce`
> option is enabled, as reported in the forum [1].
> 
> To allow users to specify custom options for KRBD, introduce a
> corresponding `krbd-map-options` property to the RBD plugin. The
> property is designed to only accept a supported set of map options.
> For now, this is only the `rxbounce` map option, but the supported set
> can be extended in the future.
> 
> The reasoning for constraining the supported set of map options
> instead of allowing to pass a free-form option string is as follows:
> If `rxbounce` turns out to be a sensible default, accepting a
> free-form option string now will make it hard to switch over the
> default to `rxbounce` while still allowing users to disable `rxbounce`
> if needed. This would require scanning the free-form string for a
> `norxbounce` or similar, which is cumbersome.

Reading the Ceph KRBD option docs [0] it seems a bit like it might
be valid to always enable this for OS type Windows? Which could safe
us an option here and avoid doing this storage wide.

[0]: https://docs.ceph.com/en/reef/man/8/rbd/#kernel-rbd-krbd-options

> If users need to set a map option that `krbd-map-options` does not
> support (yet), they can alternatively set the RBD config option
> `rbd_default_map_options` [2].

But that would work now already? So this is basically just to expose it
directly in the PVE (UI) stack?

One reason I'm not totally happy with such stuff is that storage wide is
quite a big scope; users might then tend to configure the same Ceph pool as
multiple PVE storages, something that can have bad side effects.
We basically had this issue for when the krbd flag was added first, then
it was an "always use krbd or never user krbd" flag, now it's rather an
"always use krbd or else use what works (librbd for VMs and krbd for CTs)"
flag, and a big reason was that otherwise one would need two pools or,
worse, exposing the same pool twice to PVE. This patch feels a bit like
going slightly back to that direction, albeit it's not 1:1 the same and
it might be fine, but I'd also like to have the alternatives evaluated a
bit more closely before going this route.



_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel