From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Wed Jan 15 09:43:01 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A481226CA6 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:43:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@digiware.nl) Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (smtp.digiware.nl [176.74.240.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47yMnc23Stz4JYj for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:42:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@digiware.nl) Received: from router.digiware.nl (localhost.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DEB748AD; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:42:57 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.com Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by router.digiware.nl (router.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eX5RLrMAH1s4; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:42:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.10.67] (opteron [192.168.10.67]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A6DE748AC; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:42:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Adding a different type of blockstore to Bhyve To: Paul Vixie , "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" References: <6e5508d0-4a41-8442-3807-8b9e22bba933@digiware.nl> <42643725.2GhSzOL8V3@linux-9daj> From: Willem Jan Withagen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:42:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <42643725.2GhSzOL8V3@linux-9daj> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47yMnc23Stz4JYj X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wjw@digiware.nl designates 176.74.240.9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wjw@digiware.nl X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.63 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[digiware.nl]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[9.240.74.176.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.9.2]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; IP_SCORE(-3.13)[ip: (-9.76), ipnet: 176.74.224.0/19(-4.88), asn: 28878(-1.02), country: NL(0.03)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:28878, ipnet:176.74.224.0/19, country:NL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:43:01 -0000 On 31-12-2019 00:48, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Monday, 30 December 2019 18:06:11 UTC Willem Jan Withagen wrote: >> Something like: >> bhyve -s 1,virtio-blk,rbd:poolname/imagename[@snapshotname] \ >> [:option1=value1[:option2=value2...]] > > this is approximately how i'd hope to do object-store level ZFS integration, > so as to avoid the zvol abstraction. i know you're working on Ceph not ZFS but > the concepts and facilities are similar enough to warrant cooperative > thinking. > >> So the questions are: >> 1) Is the abstraction of block_backends.{ch} the way to go? >> 1.1) And would the extra indirection there be acceptable? >> (For network devices it seems no problem) >> >> 2) Does anybody already have such a framework for blockdevs? >> (Otherwise I'll try to morph the net_backends.{ch} >> >> 3) Other suggestions I need to consider? > > i think you're hitting an architectural limit, and that the bhyve design team > should be thinking about a third way, one which would also solve my own > loopback and mmap requirements as i've described variously. what you want to > do should not only be possible, it should be clean and performant. Hi Paul, Thanx for the encouraging words.... I've missed the discussion on loopback and mmap, I just don't have the time to read all FreeBSD and other groups. So once in a while I just do major catch up by delete. ;-) In the mean time I have submitted: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D23010 To give block_if a generic interface. Feel free to comment on it, and suggest changes that will help you with what you are looking at. --WjW