On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:14:16AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:36 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:54:44PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> >>* Adam Litke (a...@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> >>>>* Adam Litke (a...@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>https://github.com/aglitke/vdsm-rest/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Today I am releasing a proof of concept implementation of a REST API for 
> >>>>>vdsm.
> >>>>>You can find the code on github.  My goal is to eventually replace the 
> >>>>>current
> >>>>>xmlrpc interface with a REST API.  Once completed, ovirt-engine could 
> >>>>>switch to
> >>>>>this new API.  The major advantages to making this change are: 1) VDSM 
> >>>>>will gain
> >>>>>a structured API that conceptually, structurally, and functionally 
> >>>>>aligns with
> >>>>>the ovirt-engine REST API, 2) this new API can be made public, thus 
> >>>>>providing an
> >>>>>entry point for direct virtualization management@the node level.
> >>>>
> >>>>Adam, this looks like a nice PoC.  I didn't see how API versioning is
> >>>>handled.  Any VDSM developers willing to review this work?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for taking a look.  I am not handling versioning yet.  I think we 
> >>>can add
> >>>a version field to the root API object.  As for compatibility, we'll just 
> >>>have
> >>>to decide on an API backwards-compat support policy.  Would this be enough 
> >>>to
> >>>handle versioning issues?  We shouldn't need anything like capabilities 
> >>>because
> >>>the API is discoverable.
> >>
> >>Right, that seems sensible.
> >>
> >>Did you find cases where RPC to REST resource mapping was difficult?
> >
> >I haven't yet fully implemented the current vdsm API but I suspect that 
> >certain
> >calls (like the ones you mention below) will require some extensions to what 
> >I
> >have available currently.  The main missing piece is probably events and a 
> >nice
> >polling API.  Another big piece of work will be to rebase onto the newly
> >redesigned storage model.
> >
> >>I could see something like migrate() plus migrateStatus() and
> >>migrateCancel() needing to add some kind of operational state that to the
> >>resource.  And something like monitorCommand() which has both a possible
> >>side-effect and some freefrom response...
> >
> >Hopefully monitorCommand will not be too bad, since vdsm should be asking
> >libvirt for the VM details when they are needed.  Of course we'll need to be
> >testing to make sure we aren't keeping state around.  Also, I would expect
> >monitorCommand to 'taint' the VM in the eyes of the vdsm API (as it does for
> >libvirt).
> >
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>>ovirt-engine wants to subscribe to asynchronous events.  REST APIs do not
> >>>>>typically support async events and instead rely on polling of resources. 
> >>>>> I am
> >>>>>investigating what options are available for supporting async events via 
> >>>>>REST.
> >>>>
> >>>>I think typical is either polling or long polling.  If it's a single
> >>>>resource, then perhaps long polling would be fine (won't be a large
> >>>>number of connections tied up if it's only a single resource).
> >>>
> >>>Not sure if this is what you are referring to, but I was thinking we could 
> >>>do a
> >>>batch-polling mechanism where an API user passes in a list of task UUIDs 
> >>>and/or
> >>>event URIs.  The server would respond with the status of these resources 
> >>>in one
> >>>response.  I have some ideas on how we could wire up asynchronous events 
> >>>on the
> >>>server side to reduce the amount of actual work that such a batch-polling
> >>>operation would require.
> >>
> >>Oh, I just meant this:
> >>
> >>Polling (GET /event + 404 loop)
> >>Long polling (GET + block ... can chew up a thread connection)
> >
> >Yep.  And we can talk later about building an API for efficient, repeated
> >polling.  I wonder if the ovirt-engine guys could weigh in as to whether a 
> cc-ing engine-devel...
> >interface with event polling would be acceptable to them.  It is critical 
> >that
> >we settle on an API that can become _the_ first-class vehicle for interacting
> >with vdsm.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> i have two points for consideration around this:
> 1. as the api between ovirt-engine and vdsm, I had a preference for
> the bus like nature of QMF, as it would allow multiple ovirt-engine
> to load balance handling of messages from the queue, and multiple
> consumers for some messages (say, history service picking up the
> stats in parallel to engine picking them, rather than copying them
> from engine).

How easy is QMF to consume from a software development perspective?  Would it be
easy for someone to write a virsh-like tool against a QMF-based vdsm API?  Would
such a tool be able to run on multiple Linux distributions?

> single node and exposing the exact same REST API and behavior of the
> multi-node ovirt engine would be easier to cosnume for someone that
> wants to interact with a single node same way they would interact
> with ovirt-engine.

In principle an ovirt-engine-light sounds great.  Especially if we could get the
existing GUIs for free.  The main concern I have with this is the gargantuan
nature of the ovirt-engine and GUI code bases.  You want to reserve as many
system resources for the guests but it seems that ovirt-engine will consume at
least several GB of RAM and one or more CPU cores.  How would you lighten up
this JBoss stack without rewriting it in a more efficient language?  One use
case I am interested in is a single-node ovirt instance to control VMs on my
laptop.  I can spare several hundred MB of RAM at most for the management stack.

Adam Litke <a...@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to