[libvirt] RFC filesystem pool proposal description.

Maxim Nestratov mnestratov at virtuozzo.com
Wed May 4 11:37:14 UTC 2016

04.05.2016 13:09, Daniel P. Berrange пишет:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:45:11PM +0300, Maxim Nestratov wrote:
>> 28.04.2016 20:29, Daniel P. Berrange пишет:
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 07:57:14PM +0300, Olga Krishtal wrote:
>>>> In this proposal description we would like to introduce a separate pool
>>>> type:fspool. Fspool provides and manages filesystems.
>>>> Below are listed possible examples of fspool, depending on source type:
>>>> volume, directory or network.
>>> I'm struggling a little to understand what the overal purpose is
>>> here. Can you step back a level and describe the overall problem
>>> you're facing and what your use cases / goals are for this proposal.
>> The main purpose of this is to have a generic API to manage filesystems
>> similar to storage API and be able to use these filesystems in domain XMLs
>> defining containers.
>> So ,it is a kind of abstraction of filesystem sources and backends. Also
>> there can be some indirect benefits but they are not the aim.
> Ok, I think i see the point now. You'd have a filesystem pool as a object
> which manages a bunch of filesystem instances, each one of which can be
> used as the backing store for a container filesystem, or for machine virt
> filesystem passthrough.


> One might think of bolting this onto the directory based storage pool
> to let it deal with volumes which are trees instead of flat files, but
> I agree that it'd be nicer to have a dedicate set of APIs for filesystem
> mgmt.

We thought about this option and came to the same conclusion.
I hope Olga will get back to the mailing list with the first RFC version 
of fs pool API shortly.
Thanks for your opinion Daniel.

> Regards,
> Daniel

More information about the libvir-list mailing list