Re: [ovirt-devel] [virt-tools-list] Project for profiles and defaults for libvirt domains
--ieNMXl1Fr3cevapt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [ I fixed up ovirt-devel@redhat.com to be devel@ovirt.org since the former is deprecated. I'm also not trimming down much of the reply so that they can get the whole picture. Sorry for the confusion ] On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:10:12PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang=E9 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
1) Default devices/values
Libvirt itself must default to whatever values there were before any particular element was introduced due to the fact that it strives to keep the guest ABI stable. That means, for example, that it can't just add -vmcoreinfo option (for KASLR support) or magically add the pvpanic device to all QEMU machines, even though it would be useful, as that would change the guest ABI.
For default values this is even more obvious. Let's say someone figures out some "pretty good" default values for various HyperV enlightenment feature tunables. Libvirt can't magically change them, but each one of the projects building on top of it doesn't want to keep that list updated and take care of setting them in every new XML. Some projects don't even expose those to the end user as a knob, while others might.
This gets very tricky, very fast.
Lets say that you have an initial good set of hyperv config tunables. Now sometime passes and it is decided that there is a different, better set of config tunables. If the module that is providing this policy to apps like OpenStack just updates itself to provide this new policy, this can cause problems with the existing deployed applications in a number of ways.
First the new config probably depends on specific versions of libvirt and QEMU, and you can't mandate to consuming apps which versions they must be using. So you need a matrix of libvirt + QEMU + config option settings.
Even if you have the matching libvirt & QEMU versions, it is not safe to assume the application will want to use the new policy. An application may need live migration compatibility with older versions. Or it may need to retain guaranteed ABI compatibility with the way the VM was previously launched and be using transient guests, generating the XML fresh each time.
The application will have knowledge about when it wants to use new vs old hyperv tunable policy, but exposing that to your policy module is very tricky because it is inherantly application specific logic largely determined by the way the application code is written.
The idea was for updating XML based on policy, which is something you want for new machines. You should then keep the XML per domain and only do changes to if requested by the user or when libvirt fills in new values in a guest ABI compatible fashion.
One more thing could be automatically figuring out best values based on libosinfo-provided data.
2) Policies
Lot of the time there are parts of the domain definition that need to be added, but nobody really cares about them. Sometimes it's enough to have few templates, another time you might want to have a policy per-scenario and want to combine them in various ways. For example with the data provided by point 1).
For example if you want PCI-Express, you need the q35 machine type, but you don't really want to care about the machine type. Or you want to use SPICE, but you don't want to care about adding QXL.
What if some of these policies could be specified once (using some DSL for example), and used by virtuned to merge them in a unified and predictable way?
3) Abstracting the XML
This is probably just usable for stateless apps, but it might happen that some apps don't really want to care about the XML at all. They just want an abstract view of the domain, possibly add/remove a device and that's it. We could do that as well. I can't really tell how much of a demand there is for it, though.
It is safe to say that applications do not want to touch XML at all. Any non-trivial application has created an abstraction around XML, so that they have an API to express what they want, rather than manipulating of strings to format/parse XML.
Sure, this was just meant to be a question as to whether it's worth pursuing or not. You make a good point on why it is not (at least for existing apps). However, since this was optional, the way this would look without the XML abstraction is that both input and output would be valid domain definitions, ultimately resulting in something similar to virt-xml with the added benefit of applying a policy from a file/string either supplied by the application itself. Whether that policy was taken from a common repository of such knowledge is orthogonal to this idea. Since you would work with the same data, the upgrade could be incremental as you'd only let virtuned fill in values for new options and could slowly move on to using it for some pre-existing ones. None of the previous approaches did this, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it gets more difficult when you need to expose all the bits libvirt does and keep them in sync (as you write below). [...]
If there was something higher level that gets more interesting, but the hard bit is that you still need a way to get at all the low level bits becuase a higher level abstracted API will never cover every niche use case.
Oh, definitely not every, but I see two groups of projects that have a lot in common between themselves and between the groups as well. On the other hand just templating and defaults is something that's easy enough to do that it's not worth outsourcing that into another one's codebase.
4) Identifying devices properly
In contrast to the previous point, stateful apps might have a problem identifying devices after hotplug. For example, let's say you don't care about the addresses and leave that up to libvirt. You hotplug a device into the domain and dump the new XML of it. Depending on what type of device it was, you might need to identify it based on different values. It could be <target dev=3D''/> for disks, <mac address=3D''/> f= or interfaces etc. For some devices it might not even be possible and you need to remember the addresses of all the previous devices and then parse them just to identify that one device and then throw them away.
With new enough libvirt you could use the user aliases for that, but turns out it's not that easy to use them properly anyway. Also the aliases won't help users identify that device inside the guest.
NB, relating between host device config and guest visible device config is a massive problem space in its own right, and not very easy to address. In OpenStack we ended up defining a concept of "device tagging" via cloud-init metadata, where openstack allows users to set opaque string tags against devices their VM has. OpenStack that generates a metadata file that records various pieces of identifying hardware attributes (PCI address, MAC addr, disk serial, etc) alongside the user tag. This metadata file is exposed to the guest with the hope that there's enough info to allow the user to decide which device is to be used for which purpose
This is good point, but I was mostly thinking about identifying devices =66rom the host POV between two different XMLs (pre- and post- some XML-modifying action, like hotplug).
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/vir= t-device-role-tagging.html https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/1= 0/html/networking_guide/use-tagging
<rant> We really should've gone with new attribute for the user alias instead of using an existing one, given how many problems that is causing. </rant>
5) Generating the right XML snippet for device hot-(un)plug
This is kind of related to some previous points.
When hot-plugging a device and creating an XML snippet for it, you want to keep the defaults from point 1) and policies from 2) in mind. Or something related to the already existing domain which you can describe systematically. And adding something for identification (see previous point).
Doing the hot-unplug is easy depending on how much information about that device is saved by your application. The less you save about the device (or show to the user in a GUI, if applicable) the harder it might be to generate an XML that libvirt will accept. Again, some problems with this should be fixed in libvirt, some of them are easy to workaround. But having a common ground that takes care of this should help some projects.
Hot-unplug could be implemented just based on the alias. This is something that would fit into libvirt as well.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
To mention some pre-existing solutions:
- I understand OpenStack has some really sensible and wisely chosen and/or tested default values.
In terms of default devices and OS specific choices, OpenStack's decisions have been largely inspired by previous work in oVirt and / or virt-manager. So there's obviously overlap in the conceptual area, but there's also plenty that is very specific to OpenStack - untangling the two extract the common bits from the app specific bits is hard.
It definitely is, but do you think it's so difficult it's worthless to pursuit? I did a tiny PoC based on the code from virt-manager, which was trivial mainly thanks to the XMLBuilder for the domain objects. Maybe exposing an easy way to work with the XML would be enough for some projects. Little birdie from oVirt told me that they would like some of sort of thing that does what you can achieve with virt-xml if we, for example, made it work on pure XML definitions without connecting to libvirt.
- I know KubeVirt has VirtualMachinePresets. That is something closely related to points 1) and 2). Also their abstraction of the XML might be usable for point 3).
- There was an effort on creating policy based configuration of libvirt objects called libvirt-designer. This is closely related to points 2) and 3). Unfortunately there was no much going on lately and part of virt-manager repository has currently more features implemented with the same ideas in mind, just not exported for public use.
This is the same kind of problem we faced wrt libvirt-gconfig and libvirt-gobject usage from virt-manager - it has an extensive code base that already works, and rewriting it to use something new is alot of work for no short-term benefit. libvirt-gconfig/gobject were supposed to be the "easy" bits for virt-manager to adopt, as they don't really include much logic that would step on virt-manager's toes. libvirt-designer was going to be a very opinionated library and in retrospective that makes it even harder to consider adopting it for usage in virt-manager, as it'll have signficant liklihood of making functionally significant changes in behaviour.
The initial idea (which I forgot to mention) was that all the decisions libvirt currently does (so that it keeps the guest ABI stable) would be moved into data (let's say some DSL) and it could then be switched or adjusted if that's not what the mgmt app wants (on a per-definition basis, of course). I didn't feel very optimistic about the upstream acceptance for that idea, so I figured that there could be something that lives beside libvirt, helps with some policies if requested and then the resulting XML could be fed into libvirt for determining the rest.
There's also the problem with use of native libraries that would impact many apps. We only got OpenStack to grudgingly allow the
By native you mean actual binary libraries or native to the OpenStack code as in python module? Because what I had in mind for this project was a python module with optional wrapper for REST API.
use of libosinfo native library via GObject Introspection, by promising to do work to turn the osinfo database into an approved stable format which OpenStack could then consume directly, dropping the native API usage :-( Incidentally, the former was done (formal spec for the DB format), but the latter was not yet (direct DB usage by OpenStack)
BTW, I don't like that I'm being so negative to your proposal :-( I used to hope that we would be able to build higher level APIs on top of libvirt to reduce the overlap between different applications reinventing the wheel. Even the simplest bits we tried like the gconfig/gobject API are barely used. libvirt-designer is basically a failure. Though admittedly it didn't have enough development resource applied to make it compelling, in retrospect adoption was always going to be a hard sell except in greenfield developments.
I'm glad for the knowledge you provided. So maybe instead of focusing on de-duplication of existing codebases we could _at least_ aim at future mgmt apps. OTOH improving documentation on how to properly build higher level concepts on top of libvirt would benefit them as well.
Libosinfo is probably the bit we've had most success with, and has most promise for the future, particularly now that we formally allow apps to read the osinfo database directly and bypass the API. It is quite easy to fit into existing application codebases which helps alot. Even there I'm still disappointed that we only have GNOME Boxes using the kickstart generator part of osinfo - oVirt and Oz both still have their own kickstart generator code for automating OS installs.
In general though, I fear anything API based is going to be a really hard sell to get wide adoption for based on what we've seen before.
I think the biggest bang-for-buck is identifying more areas where we can turn code into data. There's definitely scope for recording more types of information in the osinfo database. There might also be scope for defining entirely new databases to complement the osinfo data, if something looks out of scope for libosinfo.
Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrang= e :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.co= m :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrang= e :|
--ieNMXl1Fr3cevapt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEiXAnXDYdKAaCyvS1CB/CnyQXht0FAlqzw4kACgkQCB/CnyQX ht0G+xAAnvv+RKtfL7aDX7nVWclilDw7XYt+0a01KuLoF7a9FZ0emZgRr2tiX8NO iTU1t68Ch62vni+FY77cuPM7eixUdYEwUaVybptJvWKzAgladXpA93ZfsT0wGxpi qIrkpgbJmiAULogBrc8ia2bqy2MpFDIFAPzsMDTsznJH/cJMErA+Hg5A8VVOt0Cl j6uwGCT7MYRBK2/th3Q0POVLtnj6MnXbuTda3sl45aNMnOEDmxKNW+zNdgUfbAxO 0GdjfypwJyFIz4FZRrVvlnMEHlqkZyJcDF6BQN+lVKsTizcDAYV6QM3snNLTFgsF huIcrMsWNnDG/GsbkFyc6XkvPeZ6xonMW0LEYHP6pLTyg1CGIJ7E6VaPNlEVRU+J aJjqHEW14oTc6ttuf8m7El972ATXgY6l1W4FiQisIy7PpwpGb896zoaEyYryGJT4 WWXFW60QoDPNmjHgA4S0PdefEuKrD1u5BUYVExpVW7ud8uyggssKz6id7mv+4J6Y Jv0WaaIA/l53mInyEzOpTHT6tMExH64tHF2RdghQ+r7tzNxtCmBDmj3QcwHzaa97 +R0txkevMqJ57l2QvWKc2z7CJHsuZqolDrGpMUJ35PFOqAeq2elj9F4fmUlV+nt5 Ju4qL3mrJ4AdhtXBACcQLNqUsbgGs1E99gY2v9mpJOPvSyVD5O0= =L9yQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ieNMXl1Fr3cevapt--
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
One more thing could be automatically figuring out best values based on libosinfo-provided data.
2) Policies
Lot of the time there are parts of the domain definition that need to be added, but nobody really cares about them. Sometimes it's enough to have few templates, another time you might want to have a policy per-scenario and want to combine them in various ways. For example with the data provided by point 1).
For example if you want PCI-Express, you need the q35 machine type, but you don't really want to care about the machine type. Or you want to use SPICE, but you don't want to care about adding QXL.
What if some of these policies could be specified once (using some DSL for example), and used by virtuned to merge them in a unified and predictable way?
3) Abstracting the XML
This is probably just usable for stateless apps, but it might happen that some apps don't really want to care about the XML at all. They just want an abstract view of the domain, possibly add/remove a device and that's it. We could do that as well. I can't really tell how much of a demand there is for it, though.
It is safe to say that applications do not want to touch XML at all. Any non-trivial application has created an abstraction around XML, so that they have an API to express what they want, rather than manipulating of strings to format/parse XML.
Sure, this was just meant to be a question as to whether it's worth pursuing or not. You make a good point on why it is not (at least for existing apps).
However, since this was optional, the way this would look without the XML abstraction is that both input and output would be valid domain definitions, ultimately resulting in something similar to virt-xml with the added benefit of applying a policy from a file/string either supplied by the application itself. Whether that policy was taken from a common repository of such knowledge is orthogonal to this idea. Since you would work with the same data, the upgrade could be incremental as you'd only let virtuned fill in values for new options and could slowly move on to using it for some pre-existing ones. None of the previous approaches did this, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it gets more difficult when you need to expose all the bits libvirt does and keep them in sync (as you write below).
That has implications for how mgmt app deals with XML. Nova has object models for representing XML in memory, but it doesn't aim to have loss-less roundtrip from parse -> object -> format. So if Nova gets basic XML from virttuned, parses it into its object to let it set more fields and then formats it again, chances are it will have lost a bunch of stuff from virttuned. Of course if you know about this need upfront you can design the application such that it can safely round-trip, but this is just example of problem with integrating to existing apps. The other thing that concerns is that there are dependancies between different bits of XML for a given device. ie if feature X is set to a certain value, that prevents use of feature Y. So if virttuned sets feature X, but the downstream application uses feature Y, the final result can be incompatible. The application won't know this because it doesn't control what stuff virttuned would be setting. This can in turn cause ordering constraints. eg the application needs to say that virtio-net is being used, then virttuned can set some defaults like enabling vhost-net, and then the application can fill in more bits that it cares about. Or if we let virttuned go first, setting virtio-net model + vhost-net, then application wants to change model to e1000e, it has to be aware that it must now delete the vhost-net bit that virtuned added. This ends up being more complicated that just ignoring virttuned and coding up use of vhost-net in application code.
This is the same kind of problem we faced wrt libvirt-gconfig and libvirt-gobject usage from virt-manager - it has an extensive code base that already works, and rewriting it to use something new is alot of work for no short-term benefit. libvirt-gconfig/gobject were supposed to be the "easy" bits for virt-manager to adopt, as they don't really include much logic that would step on virt-manager's toes. libvirt-designer was going to be a very opinionated library and in retrospective that makes it even harder to consider adopting it for usage in virt-manager, as it'll have signficant liklihood of making functionally significant changes in behaviour.
The initial idea (which I forgot to mention) was that all the decisions libvirt currently does (so that it keeps the guest ABI stable) would be moved into data (let's say some DSL) and it could then be switched or adjusted if that's not what the mgmt app wants (on a per-definition basis, of course). I didn't feel very optimistic about the upstream acceptance for that idea, so I figured that there could be something that lives beside libvirt, helps with some policies if requested and then the resulting XML could be fed into libvirt for determining the rest.
I can't even imagine how we would go about encoding the stable guest ABI logic libvirt does today in data !
There's also the problem with use of native libraries that would impact many apps. We only got OpenStack to grudgingly allow the
By native you mean actual binary libraries or native to the OpenStack code as in python module? Because what I had in mind for this project was a python module with optional wrapper for REST API.
I meant native binary libraries. ie openstack is not happy in general with adding dependancies on new OS services, because there's a big time lag for getting them into all distros. By comparison a pure python library, they can just handle automatically in their deployment tools, just pip installing on any OS distro straight from pypi. This is what made use of libosinfo a hard sell in Nova. The same thing is seen with Go / Rust where some applications have decided they're better of actually re-implementing the libvirt RPC protocol in Go / Rust rather than use the libvirt.so client. I think this is a bad tradeoff in general, but I can see why they like it Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
Hi, I'd like to go one step back and discuss why we should try to do this on the high level. For the last 5-10 years of KVM development, we are pragmatically providing the Linux host level APIs via project specific host agents/integration code (Nova agent, oVirt host agent, virt-manager). In recent time we see new projects that have similar requirements (Cockpit, different automation tool, KubeVirt), this means that all of the Linux virt stack consumers are reinventing the wheel and using very different paths to consume the partial solutions that are provided today. The use of the Linux virt stack is well defined by the existing projects scope and it makes a lot of sense to try to provide the common patterns via the virt stack directly as a host level API that different client or management consume. The main goal is to improve the developer experience for virtualization management applications with an API set that is useful to the entire set of tools (OSP, oVirt, KubeVirt, Cockpit and so on). The Linux virt developer community currently is not able to provide best practices and optimizations from single node knowledge. This means that all of that smarts is locked to the specific project integration in the good case or not provided at all and the projects as a whole lose from that. When testing the Linux virt stack itself and since each project has different usage pattern, we lose the ability to test abilities on the lower level making the entire stack less stable and complete for new features. This also limits the different projects ability to contribute back to the Linux stack based on their user and market experience for others in open source to gain. I understand this shift is technically challenging for existing projects, but I do see value in doing this even for new implementation like Cockpit and KubeVirt. I also believe that the end result could be appealing enough to cause project like OSP, virt-manager and oVirt to consider to reduce the existing capabilities of their host side integrations/agents to shims on the host level and reuse the common/better-tested pattern as clients that was developed against the experience of the different projects. I call us all to collaborate and try to converge on a solution that will help all in the long term in the value you get from the common base. Thanks, YANIV LAVI SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/> 34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor Ra'anana, Israel 4350109 ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
One more thing could be automatically figuring out best values based
on
libosinfo-provided data.
2) Policies
Lot of the time there are parts of the domain definition that need to be added, but nobody really cares about them. Sometimes it's enough to have few templates, another time you might want to have a policy per-scenario and want to combine them in various ways. For example with the data provided by point 1).
For example if you want PCI-Express, you need the q35 machine type, but you don't really want to care about the machine type. Or you want to use SPICE, but you don't want to care about adding QXL.
What if some of these policies could be specified once (using some DSL for example), and used by virtuned to merge them in a unified and predictable way?
3) Abstracting the XML
This is probably just usable for stateless apps, but it might happen that some apps don't really want to care about the XML at all. They just want an abstract view of the domain, possibly add/remove a device and that's it. We could do that as well. I can't really tell how much of a demand there is for it, though.
It is safe to say that applications do not want to touch XML at all. Any non-trivial application has created an abstraction around XML, so that they have an API to express what they want, rather than manipulating of strings to format/parse XML.
Sure, this was just meant to be a question as to whether it's worth pursuing or not. You make a good point on why it is not (at least for existing apps).
However, since this was optional, the way this would look without the XML abstraction is that both input and output would be valid domain definitions, ultimately resulting in something similar to virt-xml with the added benefit of applying a policy from a file/string either supplied by the application itself. Whether that policy was taken from a common repository of such knowledge is orthogonal to this idea. Since you would work with the same data, the upgrade could be incremental as you'd only let virtuned fill in values for new options and could slowly move on to using it for some pre-existing ones. None of the previous approaches did this, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it gets more difficult when you need to expose all the bits libvirt does and keep them in sync (as you write below).
That has implications for how mgmt app deals with XML. Nova has object models for representing XML in memory, but it doesn't aim to have loss-less roundtrip from parse -> object -> format. So if Nova gets basic XML from virttuned, parses it into its object to let it set more fields and then formats it again, chances are it will have lost a bunch of stuff from virttuned. Of course if you know about this need upfront you can design the application such that it can safely round-trip, but this is just example of problem with integrating to existing apps.
The other thing that concerns is that there are dependancies between different bits of XML for a given device. ie if feature X is set to a certain value, that prevents use of feature Y. So if virttuned sets feature X, but the downstream application uses feature Y, the final result can be incompatible. The application won't know this because it doesn't control what stuff virttuned would be setting. This can in turn cause ordering constraints.
eg the application needs to say that virtio-net is being used, then virttuned can set some defaults like enabling vhost-net, and then the application can fill in more bits that it cares about. Or if we let virttuned go first, setting virtio-net model + vhost-net, then application wants to change model to e1000e, it has to be aware that it must now delete the vhost-net bit that virtuned added. This ends up being more complicated that just ignoring virttuned and coding up use of vhost-net in application code.
This is the same kind of problem we faced wrt libvirt-gconfig and libvirt-gobject usage from virt-manager - it has an extensive code base that already works, and rewriting it to use something new is alot of work for no short-term benefit. libvirt-gconfig/gobject were supposed to be the "easy" bits for virt-manager to adopt, as they don't really include much logic that would step on virt-manager's toes. libvirt-designer was going to be a very opinionated library and in retrospective that makes it even harder to consider adopting it for usage in virt-manager, as it'll have signficant liklihood of making functionally significant changes in behaviour.
The initial idea (which I forgot to mention) was that all the decisions libvirt currently does (so that it keeps the guest ABI stable) would be moved into data (let's say some DSL) and it could then be switched or adjusted if that's not what the mgmt app wants (on a per-definition basis, of course). I didn't feel very optimistic about the upstream acceptance for that idea, so I figured that there could be something that lives beside libvirt, helps with some policies if requested and then the resulting XML could be fed into libvirt for determining the rest.
I can't even imagine how we would go about encoding the stable guest ABI logic libvirt does today in data !
There's also the problem with use of native libraries that would impact many apps. We only got OpenStack to grudgingly allow the
By native you mean actual binary libraries or native to the OpenStack code as in python module? Because what I had in mind for this project was a python module with optional wrapper for REST API.
I meant native binary libraries. ie openstack is not happy in general with adding dependancies on new OS services, because there's a big time lag for getting them into all distros. By comparison a pure python library, they can just handle automatically in their deployment tools, just pip installing on any OS distro straight from pypi. This is what made use of libosinfo a hard sell in Nova.
The same thing is seen with Go / Rust where some applications have decided they're better of actually re-implementing the libvirt RPC protocol in Go / Rust rather than use the libvirt.so client. I think this is a bad tradeoff in general, but I can see why they like it
Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/ dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/ dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[resending to include KubeVirt devs ] YANIV LAVI SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/> 34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor Ra'anana, Israel 4350109 ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Yaniv Lavi <ylavi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, I'd like to go one step back and discuss why we should try to do this on the high level.
For the last 5-10 years of KVM development, we are pragmatically providing the Linux host level APIs via project specific host agents/integration code (Nova agent, oVirt host agent, virt-manager). In recent time we see new projects that have similar requirements (Cockpit, different automation tool, KubeVirt), this means that all of the Linux virt stack consumers are reinventing the wheel and using very different paths to consume the partial solutions that are provided today.
The use of the Linux virt stack is well defined by the existing projects scope and it makes a lot of sense to try to provide the common patterns via the virt stack directly as a host level API that different client or management consume. The main goal is to improve the developer experience for virtualization management applications with an API set that is useful to the entire set of tools (OSP, oVirt, KubeVirt, Cockpit and so on).
The Linux virt developer community currently is not able to provide best practices and optimizations from single node knowledge. This means that all of that smarts is locked to the specific project integration in the good case or not provided at all and the projects as a whole lose from that. When testing the Linux virt stack itself and since each project has different usage pattern, we lose the ability to test abilities on the lower level making the entire stack less stable and complete for new features.
This also limits the different projects ability to contribute back to the Linux stack based on their user and market experience for others in open source to gain.
I understand this shift is technically challenging for existing projects, but I do see value in doing this even for new implementation like Cockpit and KubeVirt. I also believe that the end result could be appealing enough to cause project like OSP, virt-manager and oVirt to consider to reduce the existing capabilities of their host side integrations/agents to shims on the host level and reuse the common/better-tested pattern as clients that was developed against the experience of the different projects.
I call us all to collaborate and try to converge on a solution that will help all in the long term in the value you get from the common base.
Thanks,
YANIV LAVI
SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER
Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/>
34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor
Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
One more thing could be automatically figuring out best values
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: based on
libosinfo-provided data.
2) Policies
Lot of the time there are parts of the domain definition that need to be added, but nobody really cares about them. Sometimes it's enough to have few templates, another time you might want to have a policy per-scenario and want to combine them in various ways. For example with the data provided by point 1).
For example if you want PCI-Express, you need the q35 machine type, but you don't really want to care about the machine type. Or you want to use SPICE, but you don't want to care about adding QXL.
What if some of these policies could be specified once (using some DSL for example), and used by virtuned to merge them in a unified and predictable way?
3) Abstracting the XML
This is probably just usable for stateless apps, but it might happen that some apps don't really want to care about the XML at all. They just want an abstract view of the domain, possibly add/remove a device and that's it. We could do that as well. I can't really tell how much of a demand there is for it, though.
It is safe to say that applications do not want to touch XML at all. Any non-trivial application has created an abstraction around XML, so that they have an API to express what they want, rather than manipulating of strings to format/parse XML.
Sure, this was just meant to be a question as to whether it's worth pursuing or not. You make a good point on why it is not (at least for existing apps).
However, since this was optional, the way this would look without the XML abstraction is that both input and output would be valid domain definitions, ultimately resulting in something similar to virt-xml with the added benefit of applying a policy from a file/string either supplied by the application itself. Whether that policy was taken from a common repository of such knowledge is orthogonal to this idea. Since you would work with the same data, the upgrade could be incremental as you'd only let virtuned fill in values for new options and could slowly move on to using it for some pre-existing ones. None of the previous approaches did this, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it gets more difficult when you need to expose all the bits libvirt does and keep them in sync (as you write below).
That has implications for how mgmt app deals with XML. Nova has object models for representing XML in memory, but it doesn't aim to have loss-less roundtrip from parse -> object -> format. So if Nova gets basic XML from virttuned, parses it into its object to let it set more fields and then formats it again, chances are it will have lost a bunch of stuff from virttuned. Of course if you know about this need upfront you can design the application such that it can safely round-trip, but this is just example of problem with integrating to existing apps.
The other thing that concerns is that there are dependancies between different bits of XML for a given device. ie if feature X is set to a certain value, that prevents use of feature Y. So if virttuned sets feature X, but the downstream application uses feature Y, the final result can be incompatible. The application won't know this because it doesn't control what stuff virttuned would be setting. This can in turn cause ordering constraints.
eg the application needs to say that virtio-net is being used, then virttuned can set some defaults like enabling vhost-net, and then the application can fill in more bits that it cares about. Or if we let virttuned go first, setting virtio-net model + vhost-net, then application wants to change model to e1000e, it has to be aware that it must now delete the vhost-net bit that virtuned added. This ends up being more complicated that just ignoring virttuned and coding up use of vhost-net in application code.
This is the same kind of problem we faced wrt libvirt-gconfig and libvirt-gobject usage from virt-manager - it has an extensive code base that already works, and rewriting it to use something new is alot of work for no short-term benefit. libvirt-gconfig/gobject were supposed to be the "easy" bits for virt-manager to adopt, as they don't really include much logic that would step on virt-manager's toes. libvirt-designer was going to be a very opinionated library and in retrospective that makes it even harder to consider adopting it for usage in virt-manager, as it'll have signficant liklihood of making functionally significant changes in behaviour.
The initial idea (which I forgot to mention) was that all the decisions libvirt currently does (so that it keeps the guest ABI stable) would be moved into data (let's say some DSL) and it could then be switched or adjusted if that's not what the mgmt app wants (on a per-definition basis, of course). I didn't feel very optimistic about the upstream acceptance for that idea, so I figured that there could be something that lives beside libvirt, helps with some policies if requested and then the resulting XML could be fed into libvirt for determining the rest.
I can't even imagine how we would go about encoding the stable guest ABI logic libvirt does today in data !
There's also the problem with use of native libraries that would impact many apps. We only got OpenStack to grudgingly allow the
By native you mean actual binary libraries or native to the OpenStack code as in python module? Because what I had in mind for this project was a python module with optional wrapper for REST API.
I meant native binary libraries. ie openstack is not happy in general with adding dependancies on new OS services, because there's a big time lag for getting them into all distros. By comparison a pure python library, they can just handle automatically in their deployment tools, just pip installing on any OS distro straight from pypi. This is what made use of libosinfo a hard sell in Nova.
The same thing is seen with Go / Rust where some applications have decided they're better of actually re-implementing the libvirt RPC protocol in Go / Rust rather than use the libvirt.so client. I think this is a bad tradeoff in general, but I can see why they like it
Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/ dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dber range :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[resending to include OSP devs ] YANIV LAVI SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/> 34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor Ra'anana, Israel 4350109 ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Yaniv Lavi <ylavi@redhat.com> wrote:
[resending to include KubeVirt devs ]
YANIV LAVI
SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER
Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/>
34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor
Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Yaniv Lavi <ylavi@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, I'd like to go one step back and discuss why we should try to do this on the high level.
For the last 5-10 years of KVM development, we are pragmatically providing the Linux host level APIs via project specific host agents/integration code (Nova agent, oVirt host agent, virt-manager). In recent time we see new projects that have similar requirements (Cockpit, different automation tool, KubeVirt), this means that all of the Linux virt stack consumers are reinventing the wheel and using very different paths to consume the partial solutions that are provided today.
The use of the Linux virt stack is well defined by the existing projects scope and it makes a lot of sense to try to provide the common patterns via the virt stack directly as a host level API that different client or management consume. The main goal is to improve the developer experience for virtualization management applications with an API set that is useful to the entire set of tools (OSP, oVirt, KubeVirt, Cockpit and so on).
The Linux virt developer community currently is not able to provide best practices and optimizations from single node knowledge. This means that all of that smarts is locked to the specific project integration in the good case or not provided at all and the projects as a whole lose from that. When testing the Linux virt stack itself and since each project has different usage pattern, we lose the ability to test abilities on the lower level making the entire stack less stable and complete for new features.
This also limits the different projects ability to contribute back to the Linux stack based on their user and market experience for others in open source to gain.
I understand this shift is technically challenging for existing projects, but I do see value in doing this even for new implementation like Cockpit and KubeVirt. I also believe that the end result could be appealing enough to cause project like OSP, virt-manager and oVirt to consider to reduce the existing capabilities of their host side integrations/agents to shims on the host level and reuse the common/better-tested pattern as clients that was developed against the experience of the different projects.
I call us all to collaborate and try to converge on a solution that will help all in the long term in the value you get from the common base.
Thanks,
YANIV LAVI
SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER
Red Hat Israel Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com/>
34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor
Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
ylavi@redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> @redhatnews <https://twitter.com/redhatnews> Red Hat <https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-hat> Red Hat <https://www.facebook.com/RedHatInc>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
One more thing could be automatically figuring out best values
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: based on
libosinfo-provided data.
2) Policies
Lot of the time there are parts of the domain definition that need to be added, but nobody really cares about them. Sometimes it's enough to have few templates, another time you might want to have a policy per-scenario and want to combine them in various ways. For example with the data provided by point 1).
For example if you want PCI-Express, you need the q35 machine type, but you don't really want to care about the machine type. Or you want to use SPICE, but you don't want to care about adding QXL.
What if some of these policies could be specified once (using some DSL for example), and used by virtuned to merge them in a unified and predictable way?
3) Abstracting the XML
This is probably just usable for stateless apps, but it might happen that some apps don't really want to care about the XML at all. They just want an abstract view of the domain, possibly add/remove a device and that's it. We could do that as well. I can't really tell how much of a demand there is for it, though.
It is safe to say that applications do not want to touch XML at all. Any non-trivial application has created an abstraction around XML, so that they have an API to express what they want, rather than manipulating of strings to format/parse XML.
Sure, this was just meant to be a question as to whether it's worth pursuing or not. You make a good point on why it is not (at least for existing apps).
However, since this was optional, the way this would look without the XML abstraction is that both input and output would be valid domain definitions, ultimately resulting in something similar to virt-xml with the added benefit of applying a policy from a file/string either supplied by the application itself. Whether that policy was taken from a common repository of such knowledge is orthogonal to this idea. Since you would work with the same data, the upgrade could be incremental as you'd only let virtuned fill in values for new options and could slowly move on to using it for some pre-existing ones. None of the previous approaches did this, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it gets more difficult when you need to expose all the bits libvirt does and keep them in sync (as you write below).
That has implications for how mgmt app deals with XML. Nova has object models for representing XML in memory, but it doesn't aim to have loss-less roundtrip from parse -> object -> format. So if Nova gets basic XML from virttuned, parses it into its object to let it set more fields and then formats it again, chances are it will have lost a bunch of stuff from virttuned. Of course if you know about this need upfront you can design the application such that it can safely round-trip, but this is just example of problem with integrating to existing apps.
The other thing that concerns is that there are dependancies between different bits of XML for a given device. ie if feature X is set to a certain value, that prevents use of feature Y. So if virttuned sets feature X, but the downstream application uses feature Y, the final result can be incompatible. The application won't know this because it doesn't control what stuff virttuned would be setting. This can in turn cause ordering constraints.
eg the application needs to say that virtio-net is being used, then virttuned can set some defaults like enabling vhost-net, and then the application can fill in more bits that it cares about. Or if we let virttuned go first, setting virtio-net model + vhost-net, then application wants to change model to e1000e, it has to be aware that it must now delete the vhost-net bit that virtuned added. This ends up being more complicated that just ignoring virttuned and coding up use of vhost-net in application code.
This is the same kind of problem we faced wrt libvirt-gconfig and libvirt-gobject usage from virt-manager - it has an extensive code base that already works, and rewriting it to use something new is alot of work for no short-term benefit. libvirt-gconfig/gobject were supposed to be the "easy" bits for virt-manager to adopt, as they don't really include much logic that would step on virt-manager's toes. libvirt-designer was going to be a very opinionated library and in retrospective that makes it even harder to consider adopting it for usage in virt-manager, as it'll have signficant liklihood of making functionally significant changes in behaviour.
The initial idea (which I forgot to mention) was that all the decisions libvirt currently does (so that it keeps the guest ABI stable) would be moved into data (let's say some DSL) and it could then be switched or adjusted if that's not what the mgmt app wants (on a per-definition basis, of course). I didn't feel very optimistic about the upstream acceptance for that idea, so I figured that there could be something that lives beside libvirt, helps with some policies if requested and then the resulting XML could be fed into libvirt for determining the rest.
I can't even imagine how we would go about encoding the stable guest ABI logic libvirt does today in data !
There's also the problem with use of native libraries that would impact many apps. We only got OpenStack to grudgingly allow the
By native you mean actual binary libraries or native to the OpenStack code as in python module? Because what I had in mind for this project was a python module with optional wrapper for REST API.
I meant native binary libraries. ie openstack is not happy in general with adding dependancies on new OS services, because there's a big time lag for getting them into all distros. By comparison a pure python library, they can just handle automatically in their deployment tools, just pip installing on any OS distro straight from pypi. This is what made use of libosinfo a hard sell in Nova.
The same thing is seen with Go / Rust where some applications have decided they're better of actually re-implementing the libvirt RPC protocol in Go / Rust rather than use the libvirt.so client. I think this is a bad tradeoff in general, but I can see why they like it
Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/ dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dber range :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrangé -
Martin Kletzander -
Yaniv Lavi