On 15/10/2015 14:35, Suresh Babu Angadi wrote:
On 10/15/2015 10:30 PM, Jose Ricardo Ziviani wrote:
On 15-10-2015 13:12, Aline Manera wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:00, Jose Ricardo Ziviani wrote:
On 15-10-2015 11:56, Aline Manera wrote:
On 15/10/2015 11:45, Jose Ricardo Ziviani wrote:
Hello,
I'm about to write a new feature to Kimchi. It will allow users to define any existing volume group as a storage pool, where guests will be able to create logical volumes into it. NOTE: VGs already in use as storage pool won't be listed.
I read Pooja's "[RFC] Proposal to manage Physical Volumes on Ginger", and now I think all LVM code should be implemented in WOK so both plugins (Kimchi/Ginger) could take advantages from that.
I believe the idea was to have "wok" as base framework without having any functionality implemented.
Yeap! Wok is only a basic web server! And it should not have those kind of features.
API:
Collection: /plugins/kimchi/host/vgs Method: GET Returns: list of vgnames: [vgname1, vgname2]
ACK
Resource: /plugins/kimchi/host/vg/vgname Method: GET Returns: dict { vgname, size, free_size, [PV partition list, like: sda4, sdb3], [LV name list, like: lv_root] }
ACK
Resource: /plugins/kimchi/storagepools/vgname Method: POST data: { vgname, storagepool_name, type=logical }
I am little bit confused with this API. Usually the POST is done in a Collection so, something like:
POST /plugins/kimchi/storagepools {name: pool_name, type: logical, vgname: vg_name}
Is that what you are proposing?
yes! updating:
Collection: /plugins/kimchi/storagepools Method: POST data: {name: pool_name, type: logical, vgname: vg_name}
The frontend, I think we could have a table indicating all available devices available for a logical storage pool, for example:
Define a New Storage Pool 1. Storage Pool Name +-----------------------------------------+ | mypool | +-----------------------------------------+ The name used to identify the storage pools, and it should not be empty.
2. Storage Pool Type +-----------+ | LOGICAL | +-----------+
3. Device path +-------+-------+---------------+---------------+ | |device | size | free size | +-------+-------+---------------+---------------+ | () | sdb | 50 GiB | 50 GiB | +-------+-------+---------------+---------------+ | () | sdc | 10 GiB | 8 GiB | +-------+-------+---------------+---------------+ | () | vg_a | 20 GiB | 18 GiB | +-------+-------+---------------+---------------+
+--------+ | Create | +--------+
May user select multiple VGs to create a logical pool? Or is it restrict to one by one, one VG, one logical pool? Depending on that, we need to redesign the UI
Nope, my initial idea is to have 1 device to 1 storage pool. That's is because users can group many partitions (PVs) into one VG.
So I suggest to have separated options: one to create a logical pool from raw disks and other one to create a logical pool from an existing VG.
I see, so we will have:
2. Storage Pool Type +--------------------------+ | (snip) | LOGICAL | | LOGICAL FROM EXISTING VG | | (snip) | +--------------------------+
and, suppose 'LOGICAL FROM EXISTING VG' is selected
+-------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | | device | size | free size | +-------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | () | vg_a | 20 GiB | 18 GiB | | () | vg_b | 10 GiB | 5 GiB | +-------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Any other pool type will keep unchanged.
Note: I intend to not list VGs without free space available. What do you think?
_______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel