[pve-devel] [PATCH] implement vdisk_clone and vdisk_create_base

[Dietmar Maurer]

> >>> local:6000/base-6000-disk-9.raw
> >>> local:6000/base-6000-disk-9.raw/7000/vm-7000-disk-9.qcow2
> >>> local:6000/base-6000-disk-9.raw/7000/base-7000-disk-10.qcow2
> 
> >>That way it is easy to check if a volume is a clone or a template. Do
> >>you think this can be implemented for all storage types?
> 
> Any changes since what we discuss monday ? This is like this I have
> impletemed it. 
> for file :  local:6000/base-6000-disk-9.raw/7000/vm-7000-disk-9.qcow2

Maybe I missed that. But I have done some tests and the volume list returned
wrong names without base image information?

Also, a clone of a clone seem to return wrong values with your patches.

> for rbd,sheepdog,... : rbd:base-6000-disk-9/vm-7000-disk-9
> 
> Note that currently, I assume that if volume is a base volume and that
> storage need a snapshot to clone, the snapshot name is always @base. (I
> create this snapshot when I create the base volume)
> 
> But maybe a
> 
> rbd:base-6000-disk-9 at base/vm-7000-disk-9
> is better ?

I think using a fixed name is good enough for now. No need to encode that name into the volid.

> Another thing we didn't talk, do you want to keep the full chain of
> relationship in case of clone of clone of clone...
> something like 6000/base-6000-disk-9.raw/7000/vm-7000-disk-
> 9.qcow2/8000/vm-8000-disk-1.qcow2/9000/vm-9000-disk-1.qcow2

No, I do not want that.
 
> >>Note: Clone from internal snapshot does not fit into my picture
> >>currently. But I guess we can add that later.
> By internal snapshot, do you mean "Live snapshot" from a vm ? (vm cloning
> without creating a template)

I just implemented volume_clone() without the 'snap' parameter now.

I will extend that when we have the basic things working (step by step).

Is that OK for you?

> >>You patch series is simply too large for me. I need to implement things
> step by step,
> >>so I though it is best to start to update the storage lib. I will try to commit
> this functionality
> >>step by step, so that you can adapt you series.
> Yes, I understand (I'm working on this since 2 months, so not easy to dig in
> it).

Many thanks for your patience!
 
> Maybe can we implement it for 2 types of storage behaviour
>  -for file (no snapshot to clone, only a full volume).    (
>  -for a storage which need disk snapshot to clone, like rbd for example.
> (sheepdog,nexenta,.. is more or less copy/paste)
> 
> What do you think ?

Yes, I have done it for file base storage (code is in git).
 
Maybe you can adopt your patch for one of the other storage types (rbd, nexenta)? 
 
> I'll test your patch this morning, to see how it's work and I'll send some
> comments/questions.

That would be great. From what I see you need to fix the list function, and the values
return by volume_clone (now called vdisk_clone).