On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Arik Hadas <ahadas(a)redhat.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:59:40AM -0500, Arik Hadas wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> > We are working on something that is expected to have a big impact, hence
>> > this heads-up.
>> > First, we want you to be aware of this change and provide your feedback
>> > to
>> > make it as good as possible.
>> > Second, until the proposed mechanism is fully merged there will be a
>> > chase
>> > to cover all features unless new features are also implemented with the
>> > new mechanism. So please, if you are working on something that
>> > adds/changes something in the Libvirt's domain xml, do it with this
>> > mechanism as well (first version would be merged soon).
>> > * Goal
>> > Creating Libvirt XML in the engine rather than in VDSM.
>> > ** Today's flow
>> > Engine: VM business entity -> VM properties map
>> > VDSM: VM properties map -> Libvirt XML
>> > ** Desired flow
>> > Engine: VM business entity -> Libvirt XML
>> > * Potential Benefits
>> > 1. Reduce the number of conversions from 2 to 1, reducing chances for
>> > mistakes in the process.
>> > 2. Reduce the amount of code in VDSM.
>> > 3. Make VM related changes easier - today many of these changes need to
>> > be
>> > reviewed in 2 projects, this will eliminate the one that tends to take
>> > longer.
>> > 4. Prevent shortcuts in the form of VDSM-only changes that should be
>> > better
>> > reflected in the engine.
>> > 5. Not to re-generate the XML on each rerun attempt of VM run/migration.
>> > 6. Future - not to re-generate the XML on each attempt to auto-start HA
>> > VM
>> > when using vm-leases (need to make sure we're using the up-to-date VM
>> > configuration though).
>> > 7. We already found improvements and cleanups that could be made while
>> > touching this area (e.g., remove the boot order from devices in the
>> > database).
>> > * Challenges
>> > 1. Not to move host-specific information to the engine. For example,
>> > path
>> > to storage domain or sockets of channels.
>> > The solution is to use place-holders that will be replaced by VDSM.
>> > 2. Backward compatibility.
>> > 3. The more challenging part is the other direction - that will be the
>> > next
>> > phase.
>> > * Status
>> > As a first step, we began with producing the Libvirt XML in the engine
>> > by
>> > converting the VM properties map to XML in the engine 
>> > And using the XML that is received as an input in VDSM 
>> >  https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/64473/
>> >  https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/65182/
>> I should start by saying that I love libvirt's domxml standard. Unlike
>> Vdsm's API, it is a real *standard* for defining VMs. In this regards,
>> you are suggesting a positive step.
>> However, Engine is much more complex than Vdsm. It is also our
>> single-point-of-failure, and where CPU is the most scarce. I am worried
>> that in the foreseeable future it would only make Engine bigger, without
>> reducing the size and complexity of Vdsm.
>> Before taking this move, we must map what Vdsm does, because that logic
>> would have to be copied into Engine. Few things pop up to mind:
>> - pci addresses. would Vdsm report back the libvirt-assigned addresses
>> in XML format, or would it keep parsing them?
> Ideally, VDSM will report back the devices in XML format.
> The engine will then add the unmanaged devices and update the pci
> Need to put some more thoughts into this, though.
>> - hot plug. Device xml should be generated by Engine, much like in the
>> vm cteate flow
> Good point, I didn't think of hot plugs - right, they could be changed as
> well later on.
>> - network rewiring. Vdsm uses the "dummy bridge" to implement a vNIC
>> that is connected no-where. Engine would need to care about what was
>> up until now a vdsm-side implementation detail.
> Right, I almost finished to copy the creation of the network interfaces to
> the engine.
> This knowledge that you refer to will only be in the module that creates
> the XML, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.
>> - storage path. this was mentioned above, but actually, the paths are
>> the same on all hosts. We inteded to have an abstraction layer there,
>> but we never ever used it. All volumes sit under
>> Basically, Engine can hard-code this in the domxml, and no one would
This is wrong, and engine cannot hard code this or anything else.
Engine should can describe only what is knows about disks, only vdsm
can add the disk xml.
Of course, the engine will describe only the information it knows, but that seems to be
most of the disk's related data.
Let's say that the engine is managed to generate something like:
<disk type='file' device='disk' snapshot='no'>
<driver name='qemu' type='qcow2' cache='none'/>
<source file='$PATH:PDIV or other representations$'/>
<target dev='hda' bus='ide'/>
(and similar structures for the other kind of disks).
Then, VDSM can simply replace the placeholder $PATH...$ with the concrete path of the
For VDSM it would save a lot of code (most of the code in vdsm/virt/vmdevices/storage.py I
What else doesn't the engine know? And couldn't this data be set by VDSM by
replacing place-holders as in the example above?
> But I see that LUN and cinder disks are represented differently (not as
> PDIV) - I'll check this.
Of course, and even disks using DIV can modified in by vdsm, for
>> - OvS. Recently, we have changed how VMs can be connected to their
>> network. It is possible (albeit not recommended yet!) to connect a VM
>> to an OvS instead of Linux bridges. This is done without Engine really
>> caring, or knowing how the domxml is modified.
> Yeah, I saw that. The only complication I see at this point is that for OvS
> we create more elements than only the 'source' element.
> I believe that we could use a place-holder that contains the network name
> and replace it with the tags that are needed for SR-IOV, OvS and ordinary
> interfaces, no?
> This seems to be the only thing that is difficult to generate on the
> engine's side (related to the network interfaces).
>> - minor tweaks. exposing a new feature into Engine's UI is hard. Over
>> the years, few tweaks have been pushed as custom properties.
>> there are not many (I see now only sndbuf, queues, viodiskcache,
>> vhost) but the implementation should make sure they are not forgotten.
>> Maybe, Vdsm should consider Engine's domxml only as a
>> and modify it based on its hooks and custom properties. This can
>> surprise Engine, a defies the pupose of having xml-building logic moved
>> away from Vdsm.
> Devel mailing list