On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:29:23AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:14:16AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:36 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:54:44PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> >> * Adam Litke (agl(a)us.ibm.com) wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> >>>> * Adam Litke (agl(a)us.ibm.com) wrote:
> >>>>> https://github.com/aglitke/vdsm-rest/
> >>>>> Today I am releasing a proof of concept implementation of a
REST API for vdsm.
> >>>>> You can find the code on github. My goal is to eventually
replace the current
> >>>>> xmlrpc interface with a REST API. Once completed, ovirt-engine
could switch to
> >>>>> this new API. The major advantages to making this change are:
1) VDSM will gain
> >>>>> a structured API that conceptually, structurally, and
functionally aligns with
> >>>>> the ovirt-engine REST API, 2) this new API can be made public,
thus providing an
> >>>>> entry point for direct virtualization management@the node
> >>>> Adam, this looks like a nice PoC. I didn't see how API
> >>>> handled. Any VDSM developers willing to review this work?
> >>> Thanks for taking a look. I am not handling versioning yet. I think
we can add
> >>> a version field to the root API object. As for compatibility,
we'll just have
> >>> to decide on an API backwards-compat support policy. Would this be
> >>> handle versioning issues? We shouldn't need anything like
> >>> the API is discoverable.
> >> Right, that seems sensible.
> >> Did you find cases where RPC to REST resource mapping was difficult?
> > I haven't yet fully implemented the current vdsm API but I suspect that
> > calls (like the ones you mention below) will require some extensions to what I
> > have available currently. The main missing piece is probably events and a
> > polling API. Another big piece of work will be to rebase onto the newly
> > redesigned storage model.
> >> I could see something like migrate() plus migrateStatus() and
> >> migrateCancel() needing to add some kind of operational state that to the
> >> resource. And something like monitorCommand() which has both a possible
> >> side-effect and some freefrom response...
> > Hopefully monitorCommand will not be too bad, since vdsm should be asking
> > libvirt for the VM details when they are needed. Of course we'll need to
> > testing to make sure we aren't keeping state around. Also, I would expect
> > monitorCommand to 'taint' the VM in the eyes of the vdsm API (as it
> > libvirt).
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>> ovirt-engine wants to subscribe to asynchronous events. REST
APIs do not
> >>>>> typically support async events and instead rely on polling of
resources. I am
> >>>>> investigating what options are available for supporting async
events via REST.
> >>>> I think typical is either polling or long polling. If it's a
> >>>> resource, then perhaps long polling would be fine (won't be a
> >>>> number of connections tied up if it's only a single resource).
> >>> Not sure if this is what you are referring to, but I was thinking we
could do a
> >>> batch-polling mechanism where an API user passes in a list of task
> >>> event URIs. The server would respond with the status of these
resources in one
> >>> response. I have some ideas on how we could wire up asynchronous
events on the
> >>> server side to reduce the amount of actual work that such a
> >>> operation would require.
> >> Oh, I just meant this:
> >> Polling (GET /event + 404 loop)
> >> Long polling (GET + block ... can chew up a thread connection)
> > Yep. And we can talk later about building an API for efficient, repeated
> > polling. I wonder if the ovirt-engine guys could weigh in as to whether a
> cc-ing engine-devel...
> > interface with event polling would be acceptable to them. It is critical that
> > we settle on an API that can become _the_ first-class vehicle for interacting
> > with vdsm.
> i have two points for consideration around this:
> 1. as the api between ovirt-engine and vdsm, I had a preference for the
> bus like nature of QMF, as it would allow multiple ovirt-engine to load
> balance handling of messages from the queue, and multiple consumers for
> some messages (say, history service picking up the stats in parallel to
> engine picking them, rather than copying them from engine).
I tend to agree, using a bus like QMF between ovirt-engine and vdsm is
an inherantly more scalable network architecture, since it avoids the
need to have a direct point-to-point connection between the engine and
every single node, instead you can build a resilient grid by stategically
deploying QPid brokers.
As compared to REST, it is also much better at coping with async events,
since you can have a push, rather than pull, model which VDSM just puts
events onto the bus as they're generated, to be lazily consumed by any
remote nodes when desired.
NB, I don't mean to imply that there should not *also* be a REST API for
the node level. A REST API has the very compelling property that it is
trivially accessible from anything with HTTP client support, which is
basically everything in existance today.
My goal is to create a single first-class VDSM API that both ovirt-engine and
external applications can use. I am ok with checking out QMF as long as it is
distro agnostic and relatively light-weight. In that case, someone (maybe me)
could always write a REST interface, but it would merely consume the first-class
QMF API. I want to avoid having multiple, parallel APIs to maintain.
> 2. as node level api, i think a lightweight ovirt-engine
> single node and exposing the exact same REST API and behavior of the
> multi-node ovirt engine would be easier to cosnume for someone that
> wants to interact with a single node same way they would interact with
If the REST API is well specified, you wouldn't need to necessarily have
a lightweight ovirt-engine deployed at the node level, you could just
have VDSM implement the same REST specification natively, as is impl
in the engine. Or perhaps provide a some shered code that can be plugged
into both VDSM & the enegine to facilitate provision of the same REST
Code sharing is hard between the engine and vdsm because the former is Java/C#
and vdsm is python. It might be fine to simply expose a single QMF (or
whatever) API from vdsm and let some better vdsm interface tools evolve from
that (command-line shell, web UI, native app).
Adam Litke <agl(a)us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center