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: feature : changing volume properties dynamically in 4.5
Date Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:58:46 GMT
Here is that design document I was referring to, Punith:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42566111

I've been working with a student in Tunisia who is participating in Google
Summer of Code (GSoC) (I'm his mentor).

He'll be working on part of this as will I. (He is also working on another
related task not listed here.)

Feel free to join us, if you have time available, as we can divide out
coding and testing among the three of us.

Talk to you later!
Mike


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:

> I plan to draw up a design document surrounding generic key/value pairs
> today.
>
> Perhaps you can take a look at it when you have time, Punith?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Punith,
>>
>> Yeah, I hear you about the number of permutations involved.
>>
>> Traditionally Compute and Disk Offerings have been immutable. It makes it
>> easier from an accounting point of view for chargeback and billing.
>>
>> You should definitely feel free to extend the CloudStack API. I think
>> NetApp did this for one of their storage features in the recent past. This
>> way vendor-specific capabilities can be more easily offered without making
>> it look like all vendors support those particular features.
>>
>> I do not yet have any code in master related to generic keys/values. I'm
>> still designing this.
>>
>> How does your schedule look for the 4.5 release? Do you think you might
>> have available cycles to help out with this generic key/value
>> implementation?
>>
>> Talk to you later!
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Punith S <punith.s@cloudbyte.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi mike,
>>>
>>> thanks for the reply, i like your approach which is a very generic way
>>> and also we only need to do a few changes to the current cloudstack,
>>>
>>> but on the other hand we are tying every property of the vendor to a
>>> disk offering through key/value pairs, since we offer lot of properties
>>> like i mentioned, this can create a lot of permutation combinations of disk
>>> offerings, for say if i need to turn deduplication On for a specific volume
>>> , should i have to create a new disk offering having current properties
>>> with deduplication On?
>>>
>>> is this approach already implemented in the current master ?
>>>
>>> and also like you mentioned about exposing a new api, is it okay if i
>>> expose our own api in my util by extending the PlugableService like in
>>> network plugins ?
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allow me to follow this up with more detail (with regards to what Chris
>>>> and I talked about):
>>>>
>>>> As you are aware, today the way you associate a Compute Offering (CO)
>>>> or a Disk Offering (DO) with a Primary Storage (PS) is via storage tagging.
>>>>
>>>> This has some benefits and drawbacks.
>>>>
>>>> One benefit is being able to have some level of vendor independence
>>>> from the point of view of the CO or DO. For example, if the storage tag of
>>>> a DO is "Fast", then this can be satisfied by PS that describes itself as
>>>> "Fast", regardless of vendor.
>>>>
>>>> A major drawback with the storage-tagging approach, however, is that
>>>> you are not easily able to leverage vendor-specific features, which is
>>>> often why you bought storage from the vendor in question to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally we do not want to add each vendor's features into the system as
>>>> properties that can be seen by the admin regardless of whether or not the
>>>> underlying storage he's actually using supports the feature in question.
>>>>
>>>> This coarse approach, however, was sort of business as usual when I
>>>> started in with CloudStack 1.5 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> That being the case, when I added QoS options to CS, I did so in a way
>>>> where the admin would see Min IOPS and Max IOPS options regardless of
>>>> whether or not his storage actually supported those controls (to mitigate
>>>> this a bit in the GUI, the admin has to explicitly select "Storage QoS"
>>>> from a combobox).
>>>>
>>>> We leverage the same use model with Hypervisor QoS: The admin sees
>>>> these options regardless of whether or not they actually apply on the
>>>> hypervisor where the VM gets deployed.
>>>>
>>>> Going forward, we want to implement a more fine-grain and generic
>>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to have a storage provider field for the CO and DO
>>>> windows (this equates to the name of one and only one storage provider).
If
>>>> the admin inputs a specific storage provider and does not use the storage
>>>> tags field, he can enter in an arbitrary number of key/value pairs in
>>>> another text field (perhaps we would provide a nice entry dialog to make
>>>> this easier in the GUI). These key value pairs can be passed into the
>>>> storage driver when it's asked to create (or update) a volume and the
>>>> storage driver can decide what each and every key/value pair means.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this approach?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Punith,
>>>>>
>>>>> This kind of a feature is something Chris Suich and I discussed a
>>>>> while back.
>>>>>
>>>>> We talked about leveraging arbitrary key/value pairs to make this
>>>>> happen (OpenStack does something similar). The key/value pairs would
be
>>>>> vendor specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we take a key/value approach, we might be able to make this all
>>>>> work the way things work today when the user wants to change an existing
>>>>> Compute Offering and/or Disk Offering.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, the user would pick a new Compute Offering (with
>>>>> presumably has different key/value pairs) and CloudStack could inform
the
>>>>> applicable storage provider, who could update the volume in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> This way we don't need to introduce a new API command and the use
>>>>> model for the user doesn't really change.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Punith S <punith.s@cloudbyte.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> since most of the third party storage providers have been
>>>>>> implementing 1:1 mapping(managed storage) between a volume(dataset)
and a
>>>>>> vm disk(vdi/vmdk) for guaranteeing the Qos, i would like to propose
a new
>>>>>> feature to dynamically change the volume properties supported by
storage
>>>>>> vendors such as IOPS, Deduplication, Compression, Grace, Syncronization,
>>>>>> Latency etc, depending on properties and features supported by respective
>>>>>> storage vendors. hence providing more flexibility for users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in case of using default cloudstack storage provider, we can change
>>>>>> the properties of the vdi/vmdk files apart from resizing the
>>>>>> volume(vdi/vmdk).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> changes in management server include,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> new async web api ChangeVolumePropertiesCmd,
>>>>>> new method in VolumeApiService for vo and dao validation
>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>> new method in VolumeServiceManager for supporting callback and
>>>>>> calling the respective storage provider driver's implementation.
>>>>>> new method in PrimaryDataStoreDriver interface for implementing
>>>>>> respective features according to their storage product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> changes in UI include,
>>>>>> new changing volume properties widget in volume section, showing
>>>>>> different properties depending upon listed storage providers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any suggestions and feedbacks ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> punith s
>>>>>> cloudbyte.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *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>*™*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *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>*™*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> punith s
>>> cloudbyte.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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>*™*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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>*™*
>



-- 
*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