cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
Subject Re: Root-disk support for managed storage
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 06:03:01 GMT
Yeah, an SR has metadata that knows things like its UUID, name,
description, etc. Then the VDI (a template, in this case) is laid down
inside of the SR. As far as I know, there is no way to have a VDI outside
of an SR.

It appears the UUID of an SR is immutable (unlike its name and
description). You can, of course, copy VDIs from one SR to another.
Unfortunately that's no different from me just copying the template from
secondary to primary each time I need it for a root disk (in fact, it would
be more complex because I'd have to keep track of all of the XenServer
clusters that currently can see the shared SR with the template on it...or
determine that as needed).

You can register an SR (they call it introducing) that already has data on
it. I do this frequently with data disks.

I've included Edison explicitly, so hopefully he'll see this e-mail chain
and respond.

I believe a similar problem exists on ESX. In that case, you have to have a
datastore (which probably knows information about itself like a SR does) to
store a template. I don't think a template can exist outside of a datastore
on ESX.

I agree with what you say about making the root disk look like an actual
root disk instead of a template (by renaming it).

If I am forced to always download the template for each new instance of a
root disk in question, my plan is to download the template and rename it
(even if I can somehow make cloning work for XenServer and ESX, renaming
the template definitely makes sense).

Thanks for your time and help, Marcus!


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>wrote:

> So if you create a volume and register it as an SR, there is metadata
> written to the volume, in addition to simply copying the template?
> What happens if you don't like that SR? Are you stuck destroying the
> volume, because you can never delete the SR metadata?  I assumed you
> could create SR, copy template, delete SR, and be left with just a
> volume containing a template. That assumes also, however, that one can
> register a new SR that already has data on it. I just haven't played
> with XenServer enough to understand the details, so you'll have to get
> advice from others, but the method laid out should work just fine for
> KVM, where you're treating volumes like volumes rather than
> filesystems with virtual machine images on them.
>
> On a side note, because of the method you're using of basically making
> a filesystem and putting one VDI on it, I just wanted to mention that
> part of the cloning process should probably involve renaming that VDI,
> in addition to cloning the volume on the SAN. At least, that would
> make sense to me so it looks like the root disk and not the actual
> template.
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > To be clear, the cloned SAN volume will have a unique name and IQN;
> however,
> > the problem is that the data the cloned volume contains (the SR) includes
> > metadata for an SR that is supposed to be unique (the UUID), but is
> > immutable.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> > <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, this is my thinking on how this cloning would work (and why it would
> >> be a problem for an SR):
> >>
> >> 1) An SR is created on a SAN volume. The SR is essentially a clustered
> >> file system. The VDI on the SR represents a template we downloaded from
> >> secondary storage. The SR itself contains metadata like a UUID, the
> name of
> >> the SR, a description for the SR, etc. The SAN volume containing the SR
> has
> >> a unique name.
> >>
> >> 2) When we need to spin up a VM based on the template that exists on our
> >> SR, we clone the applicable SAN volume. The cloned SAN volume does have
> a
> >> unique name on the SAN, but the data the cloned volume has is, as
> expected,
> >> identical to the original SAN volume. This means the SR on the cloned
> volume
> >> has the same UUID as the original SR. XenServer will not like it if I
> >> introduce multiple SRs to its compute cluster (what it calls a resource
> >> pool) that have the same UUID.
> >>
> >> Thoughts on this?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In fact I'd recommend removing the SR of the template from anything
> >>> XenServer knows of. It just needs to exist on the SAN so it can be
> >>> cloned for new SR root volumes.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hm, well I guest that's dependent on how your SAN clone works. Ours
> >>> > allows you to have a unique name for each clone, so we just name the
> >>> > clone with the new root volume UUID.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> > <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Hey Marcus,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> One thing I thought of late last night was that an SR has a UUID
> >>> >> associated
> >>> >> with it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If I clone the SAN volume that houses the SR each time, I'll be
> giving
> >>> >> XenServer SRs that have the same UUID.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I guess I'll need to look into if there is some way to assign a new
> >>> >> UUID to
> >>> >> an existing SR.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Perhaps you or Edison (or someone else) know about this off hand?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Yeah, I see that now. I was thinking my situation here would be
> >>> >>> different
> >>> >>> because in the XenServer case I was looking at, CloudStack was
> >>> >>> copying the
> >>> >>> template down to an SR and that same SR was later used to also
> house
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> root disk (two different SRs were not involved).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Even though my case is different, with the approach you outlined
> >>> >>> about
> >>> >>> creating a "special" SR for the template itself, it ends up
> amounting
> >>> >>> to a
> >>> >>> similar concept.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>> <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Yes. That's what all of the storage types do, they save the name
> of
> >>> >>>> the file, volume, etc (along with path if necessary) on primary
> >>> >>>> storage where the template is copied.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> > It looks like I could use the template_spool_ref table's local
> >>> >>>> > path
> >>> >>>> > and/or
> >>> >>>> > install path to point to the name of the volume on the SAN that
> is
> >>> >>>> > to
> >>> >>>> > be
> >>> >>>> > cloned when we need a root volume from this template.
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > Is that what you do?
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> > <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >> Maybe 2) can be made to work in the template_spool_ref
> table...I
> >>> >>>> >> need
> >>> >>>> >> to
> >>> >>>> >> think about it a bit.
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> Data disks are easier than root disks.
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> To be more clear, I should say data disks are easier than root
> >>> >>>> >>> disks
> >>> >>>> >>> that
> >>> >>>> >>> use templates (root disks that use ISOs are about the same
> level
> >>> >>>> >>> of
> >>> >>>> >>> difficulty as data disks).
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> I could see it going either way:
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> 1) Copy the template down once for each root disk
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> or
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> 2) Copy the template to an SR and clone the SAN volume the SR
> is
> >>> >>>> >>> on
> >>> >>>> >>> as
> >>> >>>> >>> needed
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> 2) has the advantage of speed, but where do you store
> knowledge
> >>> >>>> >>> of
> >>> >>>> >>> this
> >>> >>>> >>> special SR (in the DB somewhere)?
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>> Do you still send your SAN commands from the KVM agent?
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>> I don't have any SolidFire-specific commands outside of the
> >>> >>>> >>>> SolidFire
> >>> >>>> >>>> plug-in.
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>>> >>>> <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> Actually, I shouldn't take the liberty to speak as though I
> >>> >>>> >>>>> understand
> >>> >>>> >>>>> the details about how you use SRs and VDIs. My point though
> is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> basically that you probably can and should treat them the
> same
> >>> >>>> >>>>> as
> >>> >>>> >>>>> whatever you currently do with data disks. Either create a
> new
> >>> >>>> >>>>> one
> >>> >>>> >>>>> with every root volume create and copy the template contents
> >>> >>>> >>>>> to it
> >>> >>>> >>>>> (like CLVM does), or create one on the SAN when the template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> copy
> >>> >>>> >>>>> is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> called, prepopulate it with the template, and send a clone
> >>> >>>> >>>>> command
> >>> >>>> >>>>> against that one to your storage to generate new root disks
> as
> >>> >>>> >>>>> needed.
> >>> >>>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>>> >>>>> <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > And when I say 'the first time the template is used, we
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > create an
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > SR',
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > I mean cloudstack does it automatically.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>>> >>>>> > <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> Not's not really what I was describing, or that's not how
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> we do
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> it
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> at
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> least. The first time a template is used, we create an SR
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> with
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> one
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> VDI
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> (using your terminology as we don't do it in Xen, but it
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> should
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> map
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> essentially the same thing) and copy the template
> contents
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> into
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> it.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> Then we remove the SR. When a root disk is requested, we
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> send a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> clone
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> command to the SAN, and then register the new clone as a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> new
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> volume,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> then attach that as a new SR dedicated to that root
> volume.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> Every
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> disk that makes use of that template is its own SR.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Thanks for your input, Marcus.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Yeah, the SolidFire SAN has the ability to clone, but I
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> can't
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> use
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> it in this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> case.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Little note first: I'm going to put some words below in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> capital
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> letters to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> stress some important details. All caps for some words
> can
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> annoying to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> some, so please understand that I am only using them
> here
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> highlight
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> important details. :)
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> For managed storage (SolidFire is an example of this),
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> this is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> what
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> happens
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> when a user attaches a volume to a VM for the first time
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> (so
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> is for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Disk Offerings...not root disks):
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> 1) A volume (LUN) is created on the SolidFire SAN that
> is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> ONLY
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> ever
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> used by
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> this ONE CloudStack volume. This volume has QoS settings
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> like
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Min,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Max, and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Burst IOPS.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> 2) An SR is created in the XenServer resource pool
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> (cluster)
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> that
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> makes use
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> of the SolidFire volume that was just created.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> 3) A VDI that represents the disk is created on the SR
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> (this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> VDI
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> essentially
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> consumes as much of the SR as it can*).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> If the user wants to create a new CloudStack volume to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> attach
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> to a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> VM, that
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> leads to a NEW SolidFire volume being created (with its
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> own
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> QoS), a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> NEW SR,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> and a new VDI inside of that SR.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> The same idea will exist for root volumes. A NEW
> SolidFire
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> volume
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> will be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> created for it. A NEW SR will consume the SolidFire
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> volume, and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> only ONE
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> root disk will EVER use this SR (so there is never a
> need
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> clone
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> template we download to this SR).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> The next time a root disk of this type is requested,
> this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> leads
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> a NEW
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> SolidFire volume (with its own QoS), a NEW SR, and a new
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> VDI.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> In the situation you describe (which is called
> non-managed
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> (meaning
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> the SR
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> was created ahead of time outside of CloudStack)), you
> can
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> have
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> multiple
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> root disks that leverage the same template on the same
> SR.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> This
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> will never
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> be the case for managed storage, so there will never be
> a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> need
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> downloaded template to be cloned multiple times into
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> multiple
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> disks.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> By the way, I just want to clarify, as well, that
> although
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> I am
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> talking in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> terms of "SolidFire this an SolidFire that" that the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> functionality
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> I have
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> been adding to CloudStack (outside of the SolidFire
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> plug-in)
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> can be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> leveraged by any storage vendor that wants a 1:1 mapping
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> between a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> CloudStack volume and one of their volumes. This is, in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> fact,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> how
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> OpenStack
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> handles storage by default.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Does that clarify my question?
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> I was not aware of how CLVM handled templates. Perhaps I
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> should
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> look into
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> that.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> By the way, I am currently focused on XenServer, but
> also
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> plan
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> implement
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> support for this on KVM and ESX (although those may be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> outside
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> of
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> the scope
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> of 4.4).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Thanks!
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> * It consumes as much of the SR as it can unless you you
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> want
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> extra
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> space
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> put aside for hypervisor snapshots.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> In other words, if you can't clone, then
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> createDiskFromTemplate
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> should
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> copy template from secondary storage directly onto root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> disk
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> every
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> time, and copyPhysicalDisk really does nothing. If you
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> can
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> clone,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> then
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> copyPhysicalDisk should copy template to primary, and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> createDiskFromTemplate should clone. Unless there's
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> cloning
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> in the storage driver now, and if so put the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> createDiskFromTemplate
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> logic there, but you still probably need
> copyPhysicalDisk
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> do
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> its
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> thing on the agent.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> This is all from a KVM perspective, of course.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Marcus Sorensen
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > I'm not quite following.  With our storage, the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > gets
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > copied
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > to the storage pool upon first use, and then cloned
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > upon
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > subsequent
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > uses. I don't remember all of the methods
> immediately,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > but
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > there's one
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > called to copy the template to primary storage, and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > once
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > that's
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > done
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > as you mention it's tracked in template_spool_ref and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > when
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > disks
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > are created that's passed as the source to copy when
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > creating
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > disks.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > Are you saying that you don't have clone capabilities
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > clone
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > template when root disks are created? If so, you'd be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > more
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > like
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > CLVM
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > storage, where the template copy actually does
> nothing,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > you
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > initiate a template copy *in place* of the clone (or
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > you do
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > copy to primary pool whenever the clone normally
> would
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > happen).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > CLVM
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > creates a fresh root disk and copies the template
> from
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > secondary
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > storage directly to that whenever a root disk is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > deployed,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > bypassing
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > templates altogether. This is because it can't
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > efficiently
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > clone, and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > if we let the template copy to primary, it will then
> do
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > full
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > copy of
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > that template from primary to primary every time,
> which
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > pretty
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > heavy since it's also not thin provisioned.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > If you *can* clone, then just copy the template to
> your
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > primary
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > storage as normal in your storage adaptor
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > (copyPhysicalDisk), it
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > will
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > be tracked in template_spool_ref, and then when root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > disks
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > are
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > created
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > it will be passed to createDiskFromTemplate in your
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > adaptor
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > (for KVM), where you can call a clone of that and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > return it
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > as
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > root volume . There was once going to be template
> clone
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > capabilities
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > in the storage driver level on the mgmt server, but I
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > believe
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > that was
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > work-in-progress last I checked (4 months ago or so),
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > so we
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > still have
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > to call clone to our storage server from the agent
> side
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > as
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > of
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > now, but
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > that call doesn't have to do any work on the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > agent-side,
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > really.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Just wanted to throw this out there before I went to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> bed:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Since each root volume that belongs to managed
> storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> will
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> get
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> its own
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> copy
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> of some template (assuming we're dealing with
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> templates
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> here
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> and not an
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> ISO), it is possible I may be able to circumvent a
> new
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> table
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> (or any
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> existing table like template_spool_ref) entirely for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> managed
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> storage.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> The purpose of a table like template_spool_ref
> appears
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> mainly to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> make
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> sure we're not downloading the sample template to an
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> SR
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> multiple times
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> (and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> this doesn't apply in the case of managed storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> since
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> each
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> volume
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> should have at most one template downloaded to it).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Thoughts on that?
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Thanks!
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Hi Edison and Marcus (and anyone else this may be
> of
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> interest
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> to),
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> So, as of 4.3 I have added support for data disks
> for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> managed
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> XenServer, VMware, and KVM (a 1:1 mapping between a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> CloudStack
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> volume
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> and a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> volume on a storage system). One of the most useful
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> abilities
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> enables
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> is support for guaranteed storage quality of
> service
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> CloudStack.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> One of the areas I'm working on for CS 4.4 is
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> root-disk
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> support for
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> managed storage (both with templates and ISOs).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> I'd like to get your opinion about something.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> I noticed when we download a template to a
> XenServer
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> SR
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> that
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> we
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> leverage a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> table in the DB called template_spool_ref.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> This table keeps track of whether or not we've
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> downloaded
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> question to the SR in question already.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> The problem for managed storage is that the storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> pool
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> itself can be
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> associated with many SRs (not all necessarily in
> the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> same
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> cluster
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> even): one
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> SR per volume that belongs to the managed storage.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> What this means is every time a user wants to
> place a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> root
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> disk (that
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> uses
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> a template) on managed storage, I will need to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> download a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> template to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> applicable SR (the template will never be there in
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> advance).
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> That is fine. The issue is that I cannot use the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> template_spool_ref
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> table
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> because it is intended on mapping a template to a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> storage
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> pool
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> (1:1
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> mapping
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> between the two) and managed storage can download
> the
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> same
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> template
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> many
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> times.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> It seems I will need to add a new table to the DB
> to
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> support
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> this
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> feature.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> My table would allow a mapping between a template
> and
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> a
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> volume
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> from
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> managed storage.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Do you see an easier way around this or is this how
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> you
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> recommend I
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> proceed?
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Thanks!
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> --
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> --
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> --
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >>>> --
> >>> >>>> >>>> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >>>> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>>
> >>> >>>> >>> --
> >>> >>>> >>> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >>> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >> --
> >>> >>>> >> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> >> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> >> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> >> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > --
> >>> >>>> > Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>>> > Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>>> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>>> > o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>>> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >>> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Mike Tutkowski
> >>> >> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >>> >> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >>> >> o: 303.746.7302
> >>> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mike Tutkowski
> >> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> >> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >> o: 303.746.7302
> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Tutkowski
> > Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.
> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™
>



-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message