mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/libvirt.git
backup: Document nuances between different state capture APIs
Now that various new API have been added or are coming soon, it is worth a landing page that gives an overview of capturing various pieces of guest state, and which APIs are best suited to which tasks. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0d44788fc3
commit
9943c42a22
|
@ -13,7 +13,9 @@
|
|||
incremental backups. Right now, incremental backups are only
|
||||
supported for the QEMU hypervisor when using qcow2 disks at the
|
||||
active layer; if other disk formats are in use, capturing disk
|
||||
backups requires different libvirt APIs.
|
||||
backups requires different libvirt APIs
|
||||
(see <a href="kbase/domainstatecapture.html">domain state
|
||||
capture</a> for a comparison between APIs).
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Libvirt is able to facilitate incremental backups by tracking
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -9,7 +9,9 @@
|
|||
<h2><a id="SnapshotAttributes">Snapshot XML</a></h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
There are several types of snapshots:
|
||||
Snapshots are one form
|
||||
of <a href="kbase/domainstatecapture.html">domain state
|
||||
capture</a>. There are several types of snapshots:
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt>disk snapshot</dt>
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
|
|||
|
||||
<dt><a href="kbase/launch_security_sev.html">Launch security</a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>Securely launching VMs with AMD SEV</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="kbase/domainstatecapture.html">Domain state
|
||||
capture</a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>Comparison between different methods of capturing domain
|
||||
state</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,303 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||||
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
|
||||
<h1>Domain state capture using Libvirt</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul id="toc"></ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
In order to aid application developers to choose which
|
||||
operations best suit their needs, this page compares the
|
||||
different means for capturing state related to a domain managed
|
||||
by libvirt.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
The information here is primarily geared towards capturing the
|
||||
state of an active domain. Capturing the state of an inactive
|
||||
domain essentially amounts to copying the contents of guest
|
||||
disks, followed by a fresh boot of the same domain configuration
|
||||
with disks restored back to that saved state.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2><a id="definitions">State capture trade-offs</a></h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>One of the features made possible with virtual machines is live
|
||||
migration -- transferring all state related to the guest from
|
||||
one host to another with minimal interruption to the guest's
|
||||
activity. In this case, state includes domain memory (including
|
||||
register and device contents), and domain storage (whether the
|
||||
guest's view of the disks are backed by local storage on the
|
||||
host, or by the hypervisor accessing shared storage over a
|
||||
network). A clever observer will then note that if all state is
|
||||
available for live migration, then there is nothing stopping a
|
||||
user from saving some or all of that state at a given point of
|
||||
time in order to be able to later rewind guest execution back to
|
||||
the state it previously had. The astute reader will also realize
|
||||
that state capture at any level requires that the data must be
|
||||
stored and managed by some mechanism. This processing might fit
|
||||
in a single file, or more likely require a chain of related
|
||||
files, and may require synchronization with third-party tools
|
||||
built around managing the amount of data resulting from
|
||||
capturing the state of multiple guests that each use multiple
|
||||
disks.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
There are several libvirt APIs associated with capturing the
|
||||
state of a guest, which can later be used to rewind that guest
|
||||
to the conditions it was in earlier. The following is a list of
|
||||
trade-offs and differences between the various facets that
|
||||
affect capturing domain state for active domains:
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt>Duration</dt>
|
||||
<dd>Capturing state can be a lengthy process, so while the
|
||||
captured state ideally represents an atomic point in time
|
||||
corresponding to something the guest was actually executing,
|
||||
capturing state tends to focus on minimizing guest downtime
|
||||
while performing the rest of the state capture in parallel
|
||||
with guest execution. Some interfaces require up-front
|
||||
preparation (the state captured is not complete until the API
|
||||
ends, which may be some time after the command was first
|
||||
started), while other interfaces track the state when the
|
||||
command was first issued, regardless of the time spent in
|
||||
capturing the rest of the state. Also, time spent in state
|
||||
capture may be longer than the time required for live
|
||||
migration, when state must be duplicated rather than shared.
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Amount of state</dt>
|
||||
<dd>For an online guest, there is a choice between capturing the
|
||||
guest's memory (all that is needed during live migration when
|
||||
the storage is already shared between source and destination),
|
||||
the guest's disk state (all that is needed if there are no
|
||||
pending guest I/O transactions that would be lost without the
|
||||
corresponding memory state), or both together. Reverting to
|
||||
partial state may still be viable, but typically, booting from
|
||||
captured disk state without corresponding memory is comparable
|
||||
to rebooting a machine that had power cut before I/O could be
|
||||
flushed. Guests may need to use proper journaling methods to
|
||||
avoid problems when booting from partial state.
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Quiescing of data</dt>
|
||||
<dd>Even if a guest has no pending I/O, capturing disk state may
|
||||
catch the guest at a time when the contents of the disk are
|
||||
inconsistent. Cooperating with the guest to perform data
|
||||
quiescing is an optional step to ensure that captured disk
|
||||
state is fully consistent without requiring additional memory
|
||||
state, rather than just crash-consistent. But guest
|
||||
cooperation may also have time constraints, where the guest
|
||||
can rightfully panic if there is too much downtime while I/O
|
||||
is frozen.
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Quantity of files</dt>
|
||||
<dd>When capturing state, some approaches store all state within
|
||||
the same file (internal), while others expand a chain of
|
||||
related files that must be used together (external), for more
|
||||
files that a management application must track.
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Impact to guest definition</dt>
|
||||
<dd>Capturing state may require temporary changes to the guest
|
||||
definition, such as associating new files into the domain
|
||||
definition. While state capture should never impact the
|
||||
running guest, a change to the domain's active XML may have
|
||||
impact on other host operations being performed on the domain.
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Third-party integration</dt>
|
||||
<dd>When capturing state, there are tradeoffs to how much of the
|
||||
process must be done directly by the hypervisor, and how much
|
||||
can be off-loaded to third-party software. Since capturing
|
||||
state is not instantaneous, it is essential that any
|
||||
third-party integration see consistent data even if the
|
||||
running guest continues to modify that data after the point in
|
||||
time of the capture.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Full vs. incremental</dt>
|
||||
<dd>When periodically repeating the action of state capture, it
|
||||
is useful to minimize the amount of state that must be
|
||||
captured by exploiting the relation to a previous capture,
|
||||
such as focusing only on the portions of the disk that the
|
||||
guest has modified in the meantime. Some approaches are able
|
||||
to take advantage of checkpoints to provide an incremental
|
||||
backup, while others are only capable of a full backup even if
|
||||
that means re-capturing unchanged portions of the disk.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Local vs. remote</dt>
|
||||
<dd>Domains that completely use remote storage may only need
|
||||
some mechanism to keep track of guest memory state while using
|
||||
external means to manage storage. Still, hypervisor and guest
|
||||
cooperation to ensure points in time when no I/O is in flight
|
||||
across the network can be important for properly capturing
|
||||
disk state.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt>Network latency</dt>
|
||||
<dd>Whether it's domain storage or saving domain state into
|
||||
remote storage, network latency has an impact on snapshot
|
||||
data. Having dedicated network capacity, bandwidth, or quality
|
||||
of service levels may play a role, as well as planning for how
|
||||
much of the backup process needs to be local.</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
An example of the various facets in action is migration of a
|
||||
running guest. In order for the guest to be able to resume on
|
||||
the destination at the same place it left off at the source, the
|
||||
hypervisor has to get to a point where execution on the source
|
||||
is stopped, the last remaining changes occurring since the
|
||||
migration started are then transferred, and the guest is started
|
||||
on the target. The management software thus must keep track of
|
||||
the starting point and any changes since the starting
|
||||
point. These last changes are often referred to as dirty page
|
||||
tracking or dirty disk block bitmaps. At some point in time
|
||||
during the migration, the management software must freeze the
|
||||
source guest, transfer the dirty data, and then start the guest
|
||||
on the target. This period of time must be minimal. To minimize
|
||||
overall migration time, one is advised to use a dedicated
|
||||
network connection with a high quality of service. Alternatively
|
||||
saving the current state of the running guest can just be a
|
||||
point in time type operation which doesn't require updating the
|
||||
"last vestiges" of state prior to writing out the saved state
|
||||
file. The state file is the point in time of whatever is current
|
||||
and may contain incomplete data which if used to restart the
|
||||
guest could cause confusion or problems because some operation
|
||||
wasn't completed depending upon where in time the operation was
|
||||
commenced.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2><a id="apis">State capture APIs</a></h2>
|
||||
<p>With those definitions, the following libvirt APIs related to
|
||||
state capture have these properties:</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainManagedSave"><code>virDomainManagedSave</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This API saves guest memory, with libvirt managing all of
|
||||
the saved state, then stops the guest. While stopped, the
|
||||
disks can be copied by a third party. However, since any
|
||||
subsequent restart of the guest by libvirt API will restore
|
||||
the memory state (which typically only works if the disk state
|
||||
is unchanged in the meantime), and since it is not possible to
|
||||
get at the memory state that libvirt is managing, this is not
|
||||
viable as a means for rolling back to earlier saved states,
|
||||
but is rather more suited to situations such as suspending a
|
||||
guest prior to rebooting the host in order to resume the guest
|
||||
when the host is back up. This API also has a drawback of
|
||||
potentially long guest downtime, and therefore does not lend
|
||||
itself well to live backups.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainSave"><code>virDomainSave</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This API is similar to virDomainManagedSave(), but moves the
|
||||
burden on managing the stored memory state to the user. As
|
||||
such, the user can now couple saved state with copies of the
|
||||
disks to perform a revert to an arbitrary earlier saved state.
|
||||
However, changing who manages the memory state does not change
|
||||
the drawback of potentially long guest downtime when capturing
|
||||
state.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain-snapshot.html#virDomainSnapshotCreateXML"><code>virDomainSnapshotCreateXML</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This API wraps several approaches for capturing guest state,
|
||||
with a general premise of creating a snapshot (where the
|
||||
current guest resources are frozen in time and a new wrapper
|
||||
layer is opened for tracking subsequent guest changes). It
|
||||
can operate on both offline and running guests, can choose
|
||||
whether to capture the state of memory, disk, or both when
|
||||
used on a running guest, and can choose between internal and
|
||||
external storage for captured state. However, it is geared
|
||||
towards post-event captures (when capturing both memory and
|
||||
disk state, the disk state is not captured until all memory
|
||||
state has been collected first). Using QEMU as the
|
||||
hypervisor, internal snapshots currently have lengthy downtime
|
||||
that is incompatible with freezing guest I/O, but external
|
||||
snapshots are quick when memory contents are not also saved.
|
||||
Since creating an external snapshot changes which disk image
|
||||
resource is in use by the guest, this API can be coupled
|
||||
with <a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainBlockCommit"><code>virDomainBlockCommit()</code></a>
|
||||
to restore things back to the guest using its original disk
|
||||
image, where a third-party tool can read the backing file
|
||||
prior to the live commit. See also
|
||||
the <a href="formatsnapshot.html">XML details</a> used with
|
||||
this command.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainFSFreeze"><code>virDomainFSFreeze</code></a>, <a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainFSThaw"><code>virDomainFSThaw</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This pair of APIs does not directly capture guest state, but
|
||||
can be used to coordinate with a trusted live guest that state
|
||||
capture is about to happen, and therefore guest I/O should be
|
||||
quiesced so that the state capture is fully consistent, rather
|
||||
than merely crash consistent. Some APIs are able to
|
||||
automatically perform a freeze and thaw via a flags parameter,
|
||||
rather than having to make separate calls to these
|
||||
functions. Also, note that freezing guest I/O is only possible
|
||||
with trusted guests running a guest agent, and that some
|
||||
guests place maximum time limits on how long I/O can be
|
||||
frozen.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain-checkpoint.html#virDomainCheckpointCreateXML"><code>virDomainCheckpointCreateXML</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This API does not actually capture guest state, rather it
|
||||
makes it possible to track which portions of guest disks have
|
||||
changed between a checkpoint and the current live execution of
|
||||
the guest. However, while it is possible use this API to
|
||||
create checkpoints in isolation, it is more typical to create
|
||||
a checkpoint as a side-effect of starting a new incremental
|
||||
backup with <code>virDomainBackupBegin()</code> or at the
|
||||
creation of an external snapshot
|
||||
with <code>virDomainSnapshotCreateXML2()</code>, since a
|
||||
second incremental backup is most useful when using the
|
||||
checkpoint created during the first. See also
|
||||
the <a href="formatcheckpoint.html">XML details</a> used with
|
||||
this command.</dd>
|
||||
|
||||
<dt><a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainBackupBegin"><code>virDomainBackupBegin</code></a>, <a href="html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainBackupEnd"><code>virDomainBackupEnd</code></a></dt>
|
||||
<dd>This API wraps approaches for capturing the state of disks
|
||||
of a running guest, but does not track accompanying guest
|
||||
memory state. The capture is consistent to the start of the
|
||||
operation, where the captured state is stored independently
|
||||
from the disk image in use with the guest and where it can be
|
||||
easily integrated with a third-party for capturing the disk
|
||||
state. Since the backup operation is stored externally from
|
||||
the guest resources, there is no need to commit data back in
|
||||
at the completion of the operation. When coupled with
|
||||
checkpoints, this can be used to capture incremental backups
|
||||
instead of full.</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2><a id="examples">Examples</a></h2>
|
||||
<p>The following two sequences both accomplish the task of
|
||||
capturing the disk state of a running guest, then wrapping
|
||||
things up so that the guest is still running with the same file
|
||||
as its disk image as before the sequence of operations began.
|
||||
The difference between the two sequences boils down to the
|
||||
impact of an unexpected interruption made at any point in the
|
||||
middle of the sequence: with such an interruption, the first
|
||||
example leaves the guest tied to a temporary wrapper file rather
|
||||
than the original disk, and requires manual clean up of the
|
||||
domain definition; while the second example has no impact to the
|
||||
domain definition.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>1. Backup via temporary snapshot
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
virDomainFSFreeze()
|
||||
virDomainSnapshotCreateXML(VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_DISK_ONLY)
|
||||
virDomainFSThaw()
|
||||
third-party copy the backing file to backup storage # most time spent here
|
||||
virDomainBlockCommit(VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_COMMIT_ACTIVE) per disk
|
||||
wait for commit ready event per disk
|
||||
virDomainBlockJobAbort() per disk
|
||||
</pre></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>2. Direct backup
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
virDomainFSFreeze()
|
||||
virDomainBackupBegin()
|
||||
virDomainFSThaw()
|
||||
wait for push mode event, or pull data over NBD # most time spent here
|
||||
virDomainBackupEnd()
|
||||
</pre></p>
|
||||
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue