From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:34:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:46:59 PM > Subject: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm > > > Hi All, > > Currently gluster management in ovirt is not complete if disks in hosts are > not formatted/mounted. It expects those actions done prior in the host > added to ovirt. We have a requirement to manage physical disks by > > 1. identify and populate physical disks. > 2. identify and manage hardware raids. > 3. create thick and thin logical volumes in unused physical disks. > 4. format and mount logical volumes. > 5. fstab management for new logical volumes. > > To have this feature, I would like to start a discussion here to explore > possible options suitable for vdsm/engine. > > We have done a small PoC with OpenLMI[1] by having verbs in vdsm to achieve > this. Also we explored ovirt-engine directly calling > tog-pegasus/cim-server > to get cim object to avoid two level of hopes ("ovirt-engine calls vdsm <-> > vdsm calls openlmi locally <-> openlmi does the job" than "ovirt-engine > calls vdsm <-> openlmi does the job") which also works. > > I would like to get your feedback about the PoC and suggestions/ideas how > physical disk management can be. I would prefer not depending on something like openlmi. It replicates or goes against ovirt topology. There is no reason for VDSM to call open something that calls something that goes back to the host and runs fdisk.

I would suggest implementing our own wrappers over the regular linux tools or something local like blivet[1] (used by anaconda).

In general I would like to avoid depending on other daemons as much as possible. We are already having a lot of trouble managing libvirtd and superVDSM.

From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:15:33 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:05 AM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:34:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:46:59 PM > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Currently gluster management in ovirt is not complete if disks in hosts > > > are > > > not formatted/mounted. It expects those actions done prior in the host > > > added to ovirt. We have a requirement to manage physical disks by > > > > > > 1. identify and populate physical disks. > > > 2. identify and manage hardware raids. > > > 3. create thick and thin logical volumes in unused physical disks. > > > 4. format and mount logical volumes. > > > 5. fstab management for new logical volumes. > > > > > > To have this feature, I would like to start a discussion here to > > > explore > > > possible options suitable for vdsm/engine. > > > > > > We have done a small PoC with OpenLMI[1] by having verbs in vdsm to > > > achieve > > > this. Also we explored ovirt-engine directly calling > > > tog-pegasus/cim-server > > > to get cim object to avoid two level of hopes ("ovirt-engine calls vdsm > > > <-> > > > vdsm calls openlmi locally <-> openlmi does the job" than "ovirt-engine > > > calls vdsm <-> openlmi does the job") which also works. > > > > > > I would like to get your feedback about the PoC and suggestions/ideas > > > how > > > physical disk management can be. > > I would prefer not depending on something like openlmi. It replicates or > > goes against ovirt topology. There is no reason for VDSM to call open > > something > > that calls something that goes back to the host and runs fdisk. > > > > Thanks for your input. > > Could you also comment on ovirt-engine directly calling openlmi to do the > job? Adds dependency on openlmi. I'd prefer not to depend on that. Makes installing harder. Has more points of failure. And we already have vdsm.

> > > > > I would suggest implementing our own wrappers over the regular linux > > tools > > or something local like blivet[1] (used by anaconda). > > > > I had similar thought on blivet would be a choice of a library. I will > explore on this. > > > > In general I would like to avoid depending on other daemons as much as > > possible. > > We are already having a lot of trouble managing libvirtd and superVDSM. > > > >

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:34:29 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm On 09/28/2014 05:45 PM, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:41:05 AM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:34:46 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Balamurugan Arumugam" <barumuga(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:46:59 PM >>>> Subject: [ovirt-devel] physical disk management for gluster in vdsm >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Currently gluster management in ovirt is not complete if disks in hosts >>>> are >>>> not formatted/mounted. It expects those actions done prior in the host >>>> added to ovirt. We have a requirement to manage physical disks by >>>> >>>> 1. identify and populate physical disks. >>>> 2. identify and manage hardware raids. >>>> 3. create thick and thin logical volumes in unused physical disks. >>>> 4. format and mount logical volumes. >>>> 5. fstab management for new logical volumes. >>>> >>>> To have this feature, I would like to start a discussion here to explore >>>> possible options suitable for vdsm/engine. >>>> >>>> We have done a small PoC with OpenLMI[1] by having verbs in vdsm to >>>> achieve >>>> this. Also we explored ovirt-engine directly calling >>>> tog-pegasus/cim-server >>>> to get cim object to avoid two level of hopes ("ovirt-engine calls vdsm >>>> <-> >>>> vdsm calls openlmi locally <-> openlmi does the job" than "ovirt-engine >>>> calls vdsm <-> openlmi does the job") which also works. >>>> >>>> I would like to get your feedback about the PoC and suggestions/ideas >>>> how >>>> physical disk management can be. >>> I would prefer not depending on something like openlmi. It replicates or >>> goes against ovirt topology. There is no reason for VDSM to call open >>> something >>> that calls something that goes back to the host and runs fdisk. >>> >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >> Could you also comment on ovirt-engine directly calling openlmi to do the >> job? > Adds dependency on openlmi. I'd prefer not to depend on that. > Makes installing harder. Has more points of failure. And we already have > vdsm. with openlmi becoming the "way to remotely manage" fedora/rhel, and hopefully adding REST API, i don't see why we wouldn't allow using it directly from engine for single host admin operations to avoid to having to wrap such calls via vdsm. I would prefer doing this via its REST API if possible though.