[libvirt] Extensions to the libvirt Storage API
pat_dignan at dell.com
Wed Jul 28 19:27:41 UTC 2010
On 07/28/2010 01:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:24:53PM -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote:
>> On 07/28/2010 05:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:28:01PM -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote:
>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>> I'm looking at implementing some functionality in libvirt that would
>>>> allow it to call functions in an unpublished iSCSI library. Some of the
>>>> functionality I wish to implement is not currently part of the libvirt
>>>> storage API. I wanted to suggest the following additions to the storage
>>>> API: grow volumes, show whether thin provisioning is enabled, enable
>>>> thin provisioning, disable thin provisioning, create snapshots, and
>>>> delete snapshots. I've added a patch at the end of the mail showing how
>>>> I think these functions should be implemented. Note that I have not
>>>> included details about the virStorageSnapshotDefPtr yet, that's the next
>>>> Perhaps this should be in a separate mail for better threading, but it
>>>> seems a bit strange to me that the storage interface isn't pluggable in
>>>> the traditional sense. In order to add a backend to libvirt, one has to
>>>> make modifications all over the place, for example: virt-inst, the
>>>> Makefile.am, the configure.ac, storage_backend.h, and several other
>>>> places. It would make sense to me to make this pluggable such that
>>>> someone could just load in a library that implements the required
>>>> functions and some identifying information (eg type of storage,
>>>> description, etc). A list of supported backends could be stored in
>>>> empty files in a directory somewhere, or some similar hack. This way
>>>> someone could write a plugin for tgtd for example, or in my case the
>>>> library I'm working with. I think this would also help others with
>>>> writing plugins for more storage backends. How difficult do you think
>>>> this would be? I'm willing to do a reasonable amount of work to get
>>>> this implemented, but I want to know what the experts think!
>>> We explicitly don't support external driver plugins in libvirt for a
>>> couple of reasons
>>> - We don't want to support use of closed source plugins
>>> - We don't want to guarentee stability of any aspect of
>>> libvirt's internal API
>>> We would like to see support for the various vendor specific iSCSI
>>> extensions to allow volume creation/deletion, but want that code to
>>> be part of the libvirt codebase.
>> Understandable. I was thinking that there is currently no way to
>> specify a vendor of a storage backend. For example, an iSCSI vendor.
>> This makes it look like implementing vendor-specific extensions requires
>> creating a new backend, even though there's already an iSCSI backend.
>> It seems like a secondary field for vendor, and maybe even model, could
>> help this.
> Yes, we'd want to add some kind of vendor and/or model tag to the
> storage pool XML description, to indicate what variant of iSCSI
> is to be used.
Makes sense to me! maybe something like:
<device vendor="vendorA" model="modelT" path="demo-target" />
In the pool source element would make sense.
>>>> /* File creation/cloning functions used for cloning between backends */
>>>> int virStorageBackendCreateRaw(virConnectPtr conn,
>>>> @@ -76,6 +83,12 @@
>>>> virStorageBackendCreateVol createVol;
>>>> virStorageBackendRefreshVol refreshVol;
>>>> virStorageBackendDeleteVol deleteVol;
>>>> + virStorageBackendGrowVol growVol;
>>> I'd call this 'resizeVol' since there's no reason we can't also support
>> Do all backends support shrinking? I was under the impression shrinking
>> is not quite a universal feature, so it made sense to me to break this
>> out. If most backends support shrinking, it makes sense to use
>> resizeVol instead then.
> Plain files, LVM, and disk partitions can all be shrunk, so I
> think this is fine. If a particular storage type does not support
> shrinking then it can raise VIR_ERR_NO_SUPPORT if the users tries
> to shrink.
Alright sounds good, I'll change the patch to reflect that.
>>>> + virStorageBackendThinProvisionShow thinProvisionShow;
>>>> + virStorageBackendThinProvisionEnable thinProvisionEnable;
>>>> + virStorageBackendThinProvisionDisable thinProvisionDisable;
>>> I'm not really liking this as a concept. The other storage drivers, and
>>> indeed my iSCSI server, deal with thin provisioning on a per-volume basis
>>> when creating the volume. The libvirt model is that if in the XML, then
>>> <allocation> value is zero then the user is requesting thin provisioning
>>> of that volume. ie no storage allocated for it upfront. If<allocation>
>>> matches<capacity> then the volume should be fully allocated upfront.
>> Sorry, that was a bit of a misnomer on my part, these functions are
>> intended to be used at the volume level. However, what if they want to
>> enable thin provisioning or disable it after the fact? Is that not
>> going to be supported? An example use case of enabling after the fact
>> is if they want to enable it, and then grow the volume to a larger
>> size. Disabling, of course, could be done at any time (eg for a speed
>> increase). Do you object to the thinProvisionShow function, in either case?
> I think this can all still be done using a combination of allocation
> and capacity. Some examples
> * create new volume, thin provisioning
> * create new volume, fat provisioning
> The virStorageVolResize() API would probably want to take the same
> XML format. So to extend a volume with thin provisioning
> Or to extend with fat provisioning
> Finally if you want to query current volume status the XML
> config will show this, as will virStorageVolGetInfo.
So basically the virStorageVolResize() should handle thin-provisioning
changes? What about situations where the storage is already allocated,
but there is free space, and the user wants to de-allocate that in favor
of thin provisioning (or vice-versa)? It seems like a bit of an edge
case, but I can see it happening.
>>>> + virStorageBackendCreateSnapshot createSnapshot;
>>>> + virStorageBackendDeleteSnapshot deleteSnapshot;
>>> There's no need for snapshot APIs. This functionality is already supported
>>> via the normal volume creation API, just specify the original volume to be
>>> snapshotted in the XML as the backing store.
>> I wasn't aware of this functionality. It looks like it's implemented on
>> a per-hypervisor basis. It'd be really cool to get snapshotting
>> integrated into storage backends with snapshotting support, so that
>> snapshots would show up in both libvirt and the storage backend's UI,
>> but I can see how this would be nearly impossible.
> Namespace clash ! The virDomainSnapshot APIs are per-hypervisor. They
> do snapshotting of the guest VM (including its storage).
> I was actually just talking about the storage backends though which
> can do snapshots independently of any hypervisor. See the<backingstorage>
> element here:
> This is already implemented with the LVM pool doing LVM snapshots. We
> also use it for external qcow2 backing files.
I'm not quite sure how this works, specifically with regards to multiple
snapshots. If a VM is running with one backing store, and the user
wants to do a snapshot of the current state, what happens? Is the
backing store swapped to the current state?
Thanks for the help!
More information about the libvir-list