[openstack-dev] [cinder] RemoteFS drivers refactoring: move code, which works with images to separate classes
dguryanov at virtuozzo.com
Wed Oct 14 12:56:20 UTC 2015
On 10/13/2015 10:39 PM, Eric Harney wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 02:57 PM, Dmitry Guryanov wrote:
>> RemoteFS drivers combine 2 logical tasks. The first one is how to mount
>> a filesystem and select proper share for a new or existing volume. The
>> second one: how to deal with an image files in given directory (mount
>> point) (create, delete, create snapshot e.t.c.).
>> The first part is different for each volume driver. The second - the
>> same for all volume drivers, but it depends on selected volume format:
>> you can create qcow2 file on NFS or smbfs with the same code.
>> Since there are several volume formats (raw, qcow2, vhd and possibly
>> some others), I propose to move the code, which works with image to
>> separate classes, 'VolumeFormat' handlers.
>> This change have 3 advantages:
>> 1. Duplicated code from remotefs driver will be removed.
>> 2. All drivers will support all volume formats.
>> 3. New volume formats could be added easily, including non-qcow2 snapshots.
>> Here is a draft version of a patch:
>> Although there are problems in it, most of the operations with volumes
>> work and there are only about 10 fails in tempest.
>> I'd like to discuss this approach before further work on the patch.
> I've only taken a quick look, but, a few comments:
> IMO it is not a good idea to work on extending support for volume
> formats until we get further on having Cinder manage data in different
> formats in a robust and secure manner . We should fix that problem
> before making it a worse problem.
I stored volume format in metadata in my patch, so I completely agree to
implement this spec before adding new formats.
> Points 2 and 3 above aren't really that straightforward. For example,
> calling delete_snapshot_online only works if Nova/libvirt/etc. support
> managing the format you are using. This is fine for the current uses,
> because qcow2 is well-supported. Adding this to a driver using a
> different/new file format will likely not work, so combining all of the
> code is questionable, even if it seems more nicely organized.
Yes, there is a problem with online snapshots and hypervisors different
from libvirt/qemu, the API between cinder and nova is strongly tied to
qcow2 format and how snapshots implemented in libvirt. But can we make
online snapshots optional? I think it's better to support only offline
snapshots than don't support them at all.
> Point #2 assumes that there's a reason that someone would want to use
> currently unsupported combinations such as NFS + VHD or SMB + qcow2.
> The specific file format being used is not terribly interesting other
> than in the context of what a hypervisor supports, and we don't need
> more not-so-well-tested combinations for people to deploy. So why
> enable this?
The main use case I want to implement is to use vzstorage with our
hypervisor, virtuozzo containers (known as OpenVZ in opensource
community). At this point it supports only our image format.
Usually base image and all snapshots are placed in a separate
directory, which contains file DiskDescriptor.xml. This file describes
snapshots hierarchy and contains paths to all images (base and deltas).
DiskDescriptor.xml can point to images outside this directory, but we
don't test it regularly. Deltas doesn't contain path to base image, like
qcow2, this information stored only in DiskDescriptor.xml.
qemu-img supports our image format without snapshots, it called 'parallels'
there. It can convert only image files, DiskDescriptor.xml should be
created with tool ploop.
Here is an image format description - https://openvz.org/Ploop/format
We will definitely run CI on this combination.
> We've already gone somewhat in the other direction with , which
> removed the ability to configure the GlusterFS driver to use qcow2
> volumes, and instead just lets you choose if you want thick or thinly
> provisioned volumes, leaving the format choice as an implementation
> detail rather than a deployment choice. (It still uses qcow2 behind the
> scenes.) I think that's the right direction.
What if someone will have qemu and hyperv compute nodes in the same
openstack cluster? I think the most convenient way would be to create
volume types for each hypervisor and specify volume format in type.
(it doesn't work now because of metadata filter in scheduler).
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165393/
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164527/
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev