<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/02/16 18:17, Ján Tomko wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20160218151753.GD22539@dnr.brq.redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0300, Maxim Nestratov wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">18.02.2016 16:46, Ján Tomko пишет: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:40:05PM +0300, Olga Krishtal wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">To update information about ploop volumes inside the a single pool we need to be sure that it is the ploop directory and not some other directory. Ploop volume directory obligatory contains root.hds - image file and disk descriptor - DiskDescriptor.xml. If path to a volume is a path to some directory, we check the existance of this files. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">With each ploop volume being a directory with a ploop disk image and the XML, I think they deserve a separate pool type. </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> On second thought, the pool is still just a directory, it's the volumes that are different, so it does belong in the directory-based pools.</pre> </blockquote> <meta charset="utf-8"> <span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The main idea of ploop is to have an image file, use it as a block device, and create and use a file system on that device. It is looks like loop device. However, we do need DiskDescriptor.xml store at the same directory that root.hds (file, that contains ploop). <meta charset="utf-8"> <blockquote cite="mid:20160218151753.GD22539@dnr.brq.redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> That leaves the mixing of the ploop volumes with the ploop disk images, don't we need a new STORAGE_VOL type?</pre> </blockquote> At the beginning I also had thoughts about it, but: 1) New STORAGE_VOL type will be exclusively for us. No one else will use it. So, we have volume time only for one format. 2) We can avoid such situation, because our ploop format looks a bit like qcow format. (Of course they have have different internal structure, but still, the only difference in such case - DiskDescriptor.xml, that can not be stored in the same file) 3) And we are able to work with STORAGE_VOL_FILE, because we are a file upon loop device. <blockquote cite="mid:20160218151753.GD22539@dnr.brq.redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The ploop image (root.hds) could be detected as such by the fs pool, but creating and deleting the directories feels out of place in this backend. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Actually one of the main intention of implementing ploop disk support in storage pool was ability to make it possible to work with existing storage pools like NFS, DIR, FS. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> The 'image in a directory' still won't work with older libvirtd. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Creating a separate storage pool makes it impossible. Also, our future plans to expand storage pools with new pool type like VZ storage and CEPH FS becomes worthless either. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Jan </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>