On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 03:21:07PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 11:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >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 
> >>>REST
> >>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>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).
> >
> >I tend to agree, using a bus like QMF between ovirt-engine and vdsm is
> >an inherantly more scalable network architecture, since it avoids the
> >need to have a direct point-to-point connection between the engine and
> >every single node, instead you can build a resilient grid by stategically
> >deploying QPid brokers.
> >
> >As compared to REST, it is also much better at coping with async events,
> >since you can have a push, rather than pull, model which VDSM just puts
> >events onto the bus as they're generated, to be lazily consumed by any
> >remote nodes when desired.
> >
> >NB, I don't mean to imply that there should not *also* be a REST API for
> >the node level. A REST API has the very compelling property that it is
> >trivially accessible from anything with HTTP client support, which is
> >basically everything in existance today.
> >
> >>2. as node level api, i think a lightweight ovirt-engine managing a
> >>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.
> >
> >If the REST API is well specified, you wouldn't need to necessarily have
> >a lightweight ovirt-engine deployed at the node level, you could just
> >have VDSM implement the same REST specification natively, as is impl
> >in the engine. Or perhaps provide a some shered code that can be plugged
> >into both VDSM&  the enegine to facilitate provision of the same REST
> >interface.
> Indeed, but an API is not just the transport, it is also behavior
> and error code numbering, etc.
> trying to develop two different projects trying to do the same thing
> sounds like quite the overhead to me.


> I prefer investing the time in making a lighter version of the
> engine for a single node.
> then you would also get the web admin and power user portal if you
> want them.

Could you flesh out some details on the effort required to implement a
light-weight engine?  I am concerned that this is more complex than it seems.
Also, how would we avoid dual maintenance between the full engine and the light
one when a new feature/api is added?

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

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to