Re: [Kimchi-devel] [RFC] Guest cloning

I am also thinking to add a centralized area in header to hold all asynchronous tasks.

On 10/3/2014 2:05 AM, Crístian Viana wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm presenting here my proposal for the feature "Guest cloning" which > is expected to be implemented for Kimchi 1.4. > > > Description > > Cloning a guest means creating a new guest with a copy of the settings > and data of the original guest. All data described by its XML will be > copied completely, with the following exceptions: > > * name: the new guest will have an automatically generated name. We > can append "-clone<n>" to the original guest's name, where <n> is > related to the number of clones created from that guest. For > example, cloning a guest named "myfedora" will create a new guest > named "myfedora-clone1"; if another clone for that same guest is > requested, it will be named "myfedora-clone2". > * uuid: the new guest will have an automatically generated UUID. We > can create a random UUID for every cloned guest. > * devices/interface/mac: the new guest will have an automatically > generated MAC address for every network interface. We can create > random MAC addresses for every cloned guest. > * devices/disk: the new guest will have copies of the original > guest's disks. Depending on the storage pool type of each disk, a > different procedure may be used to copy that disk: > > * DIR, NFS, Logical: the disk file will be copied to a new file > with a modified name (e.g. "disk.img" -> "disk-clone1.img") > on the same storage pool. > * SCSI, iSCSI: the volume data will be copied as a new disk > file on the storage pool "default". > > > REST API > > Only one new REST command will be added. > > > Syntax > > POST /vms//<vm-name>//clone > > > Parameters: > > None. > > > Return: > > An asynchronous Task with "target_uri" containing "/vms/</new-vm-name/>". > As expected with any Task, the cloning process can be tracked by > checking the corresponding task's status. > > > Discussion > > I think the most challenging part of this feature is how to deal with > different types of disks while not prompting the user with any input. > There are a lot of possibilities and a lot of things that can go wrong > during the disks copy but we still need to do whatever is easier for > the user. For example, do we really have to create the new disks in > the same storage pool as the original disk's? If that's not possible > (e.g. not available space), should we create them in another pool with > available space? Should we ask any input from the user (e.g. "Would you > like to create the new disk on the same storage pool or on a different > one?")? What about the *SCSI pool types, is it OK to copy the volume > data to a different storage pool (i.e. "default") like I'm proposing > here? I couldn't think of a way to add a new volume in an existing pool > of those types. How about making the *SCSI volumes shareable between > the original and the new VMs? I don't like that approach because then > both VMs will use the same disk, whatever is changed in one VM is also > changed in the other one, and that's not a clone for me, that's a > "hardlink". > > Any feedback is welcome! > > Best regards, > Crístian. > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel _______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel