Ryan, thanks for commenting.

Sadly I feel that your points, though important, are a bit of a digression from 
the main discussion.
Internal architectural changes to VDSM are out of the scope as this should be 
done on a very tight schedual.

Seeing as this is a pretty good list of things that need to be done\discussed 
in VDSM anyway. I took the liberty of putting them in a wiki page [1] so we 
don't forget and others can add\comment on the ideas.

In any case you can feel free to raise those issues on the list separately. 
Specifically, 3rd party plugins might be very topical with the undergoing 
gluster integration work.

[1] http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/VDSM_Potential_Features

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Harper" <ry...@us.ibm.com>
> To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "VDSM Project Development" <vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org>, "Anthony 
> Liguori" <aligu...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:43:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [vdsm] [virt-node] VDSM as a general purpose virt host manager
> 
> * Saggi Mizrahi <smizr...@redhat.com> [2012-06-18 10:05]:
> > I would like to put on to the table for descussion the growing need
> > for a way
> > to more easily reuse of the functionality of VDSM in order to
> > service projects
> > other than Ovirt-Engine.
> > 
> > Originally VDSM was created as a proprietary agent for the sole
> > purpose of
> > serving the then proprietary version of what is known as
> > ovirt-engine. Red Hat,
> > after acquiring the technology, pressed on with it's commitment to
> > open source
> > ideals and released the code. But just releasing code into the wild
> > doesn't
> > build a community or makes a project successful. Further more when
> > building
> > open source software you should aspire to build reusable components
> > instead of
> > monolithic stacks.
> >
> 
> Saggi,
> 
> Thanks for sending this out.  I've been trying to pull together some
> thoughts on what else is needed for vdsm as a community.  I know that
> for some time downstream has been the driving force for all of the
> work
> and now with a community there are challenges in finding our own way.
> 
> While we certainly don't want to make downstream efforts harder, I
> think
> we need to develop and support our own vision for what vdsm can be
> come,
> some what independent of downstream and other exploiters.
> 
> Revisiting the API is definitely a much needed endeavor and I think
> adding some use-cases or sample applications would be useful in
> demonstrating whether or not we're evolving the API into something
> easier to use for applications beyond engine.
>  
> > We would like to expose a stable, documented, well supported API.
> > This gives
> > us a chance to rethink the VDSM API from the ground up. There is
> > already work
> > in progress of making the internal logic of VDSM separate enough
> > from the API
> > layer so we could continue feature development and bug fixing while
> > designing
> > the API of the future.
> > 
> > In order to achieve this though we need to do several things:
> >    1. Declare API supportability guidelines
> >    2. Decide on an API transport (e.g. REST, ZMQ, AMQP)
> >    3. Make the API easily consumable (e.g. proper docs, example
> >    code, extending
> >       the API, etc)
> >    4. Implement the API itself
> 
> I agree with the list, but I'd like to work on the redesign
> discussion so
> that we're not doing all of 1-4 around the existing API that's
> engine-focused.
> 
> I'm over due for posting a feature page on vdsm standalone mode, and
> I
> have some other thoughts on various uses.
> 
> Some other paths of thought for use-cases I've been mulling over:
> 
>     - Simplifying using QEMU/KVM
>         - consuming qemu via command line
>             - can we manage/support developers launching qemu
>             directly
>         - consuming qemu via libvirt
>             - can we integrate with systems that are already using
>             libvirt
> 
>     - Addressing issues with libvirt
>         - are there kvm specific features we can exploit that libvirt
>         doesn't?
>         
>     - Scale-up/fail-over
>         - can we support a single vdsm node, but allow for building
>         up
>         clusters/groups without bringing in something like
>         ovirt-engine
>         - can we look at decentralized fail-over for reliability
>         without
>         a central mgmt server?
> 
>     - pluggability
>         - can we support an API that allows for third-party plugins
>         to
>         support new features or changes in implementation?
> 
>     - kvm tool integration into the API
>         - there are lots of different kvm virt tools for various
>         tasks
>         and they are all stand-alone tools.  Can we integrate their
>         use into the node level API.  Think libguestfs, virt-install,
>         p2v/v2v tooling.  All of these are available, but there isn't
>         an
>         easy way to use this tools through an API.
> 
>     - host management operations
>         - vdsm already does some host level configuration (see
>               networking e.g.) it would be good to think about
>               extending
>         the API to cover other areas of configuration and updates
>             - hardware enumeration
>             - driver level information
>             - storage configuration
>                 (we've got a bit of a discussion going around
>                  libstoragemgmt here)
> 
>     - performance monitoring/debugging
>         - is the host collecting enough information to do debug/perf
>         analysis
>         - can we support specific configurations of a host that
>         optimize
>         for specific workloads
>             - and can we do this in the API such that third-parties
>             can
>             supply and maintain specific workload configurations
> 
> > 
> > All of these are dependent on one another and the permutations are
> > endless.
> > This is why I think we should try and work on each one separately.
> > All
> > discussions will be done openly on the mailing list and until the
> > final version
> > comes out nothing is set in stone.
> > 
> > If you think you have anything to contribute to this process,
> > please do so
> > either by commenting on the discussions or by sending
> > code/docs/whatever
> > patches. Once the API solidifies it will be quite difficult to
> > change
> > fundamental things, so speak now or forever hold your peace. Note
> > that this is
> > just an introductory email. There will be a quick follow up email
> > to kick start
> > the discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > vdsm-devel mailing list
> > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> 
> --
> Ryan Harper
> Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
> IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
> ry...@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to