Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

coreos should ship an iscsi initiator by default #634

Closed
crawford opened this issue Sep 23, 2015 · 25 comments
Closed

coreos should ship an iscsi initiator by default #634

crawford opened this issue Sep 23, 2015 · 25 comments

Comments

@crawford
Copy link
Member

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Issue by SKRobb
Thursday Jul 16, 2015 at 23:10 GMT
Originally opened as https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/issues/1376


CoreOS should support iscsi out of the box. Does CoreOS support iscsi or any plans to in the future.

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by danielschonfeld
Saturday Sep 12, 2015 at 15:40 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by darrensessions
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:29 GMT


+1

We'd love to use CoreOS in applications other than web-tech, but not having iSCSI support in the core and having to do it in containers is both a pain and super inconvenient (never mind the performance hit).

Plus, wouldn't it be cool to move containers from server to server in an outage without actually moving anything? Or maybe have shared volumes (via GFS2)?

#totalawesomeness #openssomanydoors

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by Marquis42
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:31 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by jbenavidescr
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:34 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by IT-Juggler
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:34 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by leifmadsen
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:35 GMT


+1 like woah

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by zerohalo
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 18:52 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by CrissSoto
Wednesday Sep 16, 2015 at 19:25 GMT


+1

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by mischief
Thursday Sep 17, 2015 at 19:29 GMT


fyi everyone, there's a active WIP PR to merge open-iscsi at #1546.

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by hjfreyer
Friday Sep 18, 2015 at 20:19 GMT


Not sure where this would fit in, but specifically making the iscsi storage backend (as an initiator, not a target) for Kubernetes work would be fantastic.

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by mischief
Friday Sep 18, 2015 at 20:20 GMT


@hjfreyer can you give me some more information? right now i'm just trying to merge open-iscsi.

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by hjfreyer
Friday Sep 18, 2015 at 20:27 GMT


It looks like that only depends on iscsiadm being installed on the machine, which I imagine your work would pull in: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/pkg/volume/iscsi/iscsi.go#L63

If it turns out that's not sufficient I can file a new bug here or there as appropriate :) Thanks!

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Sep 23, 2015

Comment by darrensessions
Monday Sep 21, 2015 at 01:03 GMT


@mischief @hjfreyer

My sincere apologies to anyone already familiar with the ins and outs of iSCSI.

A very quick overview of the two iSCSI modes of operation can be found at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ISCSI

The iSCSI "initiator" mode of operation is, by far, the most utilized mode of operation with iSCSI, whereby the initiator (client) connects to a target (storage machine) over the network.

Additionally, a tool used very, very heavily with iSCSI implementations is multipathd (more here at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multipath). Multipathing facilitates a single storage device to be transparently accessed across one or more paths and provides for fault tolerance, load balancing, etc.

@hjfreyer
Copy link

@hjfreyer hjfreyer commented Oct 27, 2015

Hey, what's the story here? The PR (coreos/coreos-overlay#1546) went in a while ago, and I think release 845 includes it, but the iscsi tools don't seem to be on the machine. Is there anything else I need to do?

@mischief
Copy link

@mischief mischief commented Oct 27, 2015

hi @hjfreyer, i delayed on this because i didn't know what to do about the upstream systemd units, so i didn't pull it into the CoreOS production images.

it seems reasonable to merge the binaries for now, and get systemd units later.

@mischief
Copy link

@mischief mischief commented Oct 27, 2015

@hjfreyer coreos/coreos-overlay#1613 will bring in the open-iscsi binaries.

@mischief
Copy link

@mischief mischief commented Oct 27, 2015

@hjfreyer with that pr merged, open-iscsi binaries will be in the next alpha. if you find any issues with it please file a new bug.

@mischief mischief closed this Oct 27, 2015
@mischief
Copy link

@mischief mischief commented Oct 27, 2015

reverted the binaries in the image, until we have done some tested and figured out systemd units. sorry.

i'll update this ticket again when the situation changes.

@mischief mischief reopened this Oct 27, 2015
@hjfreyer
Copy link

@hjfreyer hjfreyer commented Oct 28, 2015

Hah, that didn't last long :P. Okay, I'll stay tuned.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 19:56 Nick Owens notifications@github.com wrote:

reverted the binaries in the image, until we have done some tested and
figured out systemd units. sorry.

i'll update this ticket again when the situation changes.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#634 (comment).

@kobelb
Copy link

@kobelb kobelb commented Dec 18, 2015

Any word on this? Is someone still working on this?

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Jan 4, 2016

This is on the back-burner for now. We will revisit it in the coming months.

@awesensepaul
Copy link

@awesensepaul awesensepaul commented Apr 12, 2016

Any progress on this since the last update?

@crawford
Copy link
Member Author

@crawford crawford commented Apr 12, 2016

No, sorry. 😞

There are a couple items ahead in line, but we are getting closer.

@andrewrothstein
Copy link

@andrewrothstein andrewrothstein commented Oct 28, 2016

+1

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
8 participants