Re: [Engine-devel] the future of template cloning

----- Original Message ----- > On 17/01/12 11:45, Ayal Baron wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> On 17/01/12 10:46, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>> On 01/17/2012 10:32 AM, Omer Frenkel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Itamar Heim"<iheim(a)redhat.com> >>>>>> To: "Jon Choate"<jchoate(a)redhat.com> >>>>>> Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:26:24 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] the future of template cloning >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/16/2012 06:16 PM, Jon Choate wrote: >>>>>>> On 01/16/2012 10:58 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 01/16/2012 05:46 PM, Jon Choate wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/16/2012 09:46 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/12 22:45, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> We are going to be able to store the disks for a template >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> different storage domains due to the multiple storage >>>>>>>>>>>> domain >>>>>>>>>>>> feature. Cloning a template will still be possible, but >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> provide any value? Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>> I see no relation between the two options. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Scenario 1: I can create a VM with a single disk and >>>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> template from it. >>>>>>>>>>> I would still want to be able to clone the template in >>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> provision VMs from it on different domains. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Scenario 2: same thing with multiple disks on same domain. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Scenario 3: I have a template with 2 disks on 2 different >>>>>>>>>>> domains >>>>>>>>>>> (domain A and domain B) and I want to have another copy of >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> template on domain C and domain D >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jon, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After talking to Michael Pasternak it seems that we did not >>>>>>>>>> implemented >>>>>>>>>> copyTemplate in the REST API, it seems to be a gap that we >>>>>>>>>> have. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This gap is playing in our favor, we can remove the >>>>>>>>>> copyTemplate >>>>>>>>>> verb >>>>>>>>>> and introduce copyDisk verb. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The template disks can be copied to another SD. >>>>>>>>>> When creating a VM from template the user can choose per >>>>>>>>>> disk >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> destination SD (only SD with the disks are eligible >>>>>>>>>> candidates). >>>>>>>>> wait, when creating a VM from a template, the user won't get >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> choice >>>>>>>>> will they? Won't the VM disks have to go on the same storage >>>>>>>>> domain as >>>>>>>>> the template disks they were created from? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yes, but the template disks can be copied to multiple storage >>>>>>>> domains, >>>>>>>> so the user can choose for the VM/disk which storage domain >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>> them from (per storage domains that have copies of that disk) >>>>>>> OH! I totally misunderstood. So what you are saying is that a >>>>>>> template >>>>>>> can have N number of copies of the same disk each on a >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> storage >>>>>>> domain. I had thought that if you wanted that type of >>>>>>> situation >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> would have multiple copies of the template itself too. >>>>> >>>>> yes, one copy of disk per domain though. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just to be clear, does this mean that the plan is to phase out >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> current clone template command and instead implementing a >>>>>>> clone >>>>>>> disk >>>>>>> command so that a template can duplicate its disks >>>>>>> individually? >>>>>> >>>>>> pretty much, yes. >>>>>> though i'd imagine 'clone template' would still be useful to >>>>>> have >>>>>> for >>>>>> the user. not sure if it implies core should expose it as well >>>>>> to >>>>>> allow >>>>>> easier usage at UI level for such a task. >>>>> >>>>> we can leave it untouched - means copyTemplate get 1 destination >>>>> domain, and copies all disks to it, >>>>> but i think it will be unusable (and problematic - what if one >>>>> of >>>>> the >>>>> disks already exists on the destination?), >>>> >>>> then don't copy it, it is already there >>>> >>> >>> I agree with Omer, there is no reason to support copy template, if >>> the >>> user wants to clone all the disks he can use multiple actions, we >>> don't >>> need a specific verb for this. >> >> Reason or lack of depends on the common usage. >> If we assume that normally all disks of a template would reside on >> the same domain then it makes sense to have a verb to copy the >> template in its entirety and not burden the user. >> The general recommendation should be to use a single storage >> domain, so I think there is room for such a verb. >> > > >>> If the UI chooses to expose such operation it will use the >>> multipleRunAction API which makes it easier to expose to the user >>> partial success, we could clone disk A and Disk B but Disk C >>> failed >>> etc. >> >> The multipleRunAction is for user marking multiple objects in GUI >> and running an action on all of these objects. > > Exactly, choosing the disks to copy to the storage domain. Which is wrong because multipleRunAction assumes there are no dependencies between the actions. In the case of copyTemplate the user sees copying all disks as a single operation which should either fail or succeed. Partial results are not clear and can cause other problems. Validations in this case should be on the entire set together, not one by one, etc.

> >> Here however, the action the user wants is to copy 1 object (the >> template) which has sub objects and it should run as a single >> action. > > We are not cloning the template itself we are only cloning the > template > disks. > > >> For example, if there is enough space on the target domain for 2/4 >> disks then using multipleRunAction would result in 2 disks being >> copied and 2 failing. > >> If however it is a single action then the free space test would >> fail the entire action and user would be able to choose if he >> wants to copy just 2. >> Note that in this case, actually performing the copy of the 2 disks >> is detrimental as it can negatively affect VMs on this domain. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> what the user really wants is to specify which disks to copy >>>>> and destination per disk, and i don't see a reason to create a >>>>> backend >>>>> command to do it >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Engine-devel mailing list >>>>>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Engine-devel mailing list >>>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Engine-devel mailing list >>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> > >