[pve-devel] [PATCH storage/manager v3] allow upload & import of qcow2 in the web UI

[Fiona Ebner]

Am 26.03.25 um 12:57 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 3/26/25 12:41, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> Am 26.03.25 um 11:47 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>> On 3/26/25 11:37, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>>>> Am 25.03.25 um 16:14 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>>>>> most of the building blocks are already there:
>>>>> * we can have qcow2 files in an import storage
>>>>> * we can import qcow2 files via the api from such a storage
>>>>>
>>>>> this series fills in the missing bits & pieces:
>>>>> * allow uploading qcow2 files into an import storage via the webgui
>>>>> * adding the possibility to select such a file when creating a vm/disk
>>>>>
>>>>> We could maybe also allow this for raw/vmdk if we want to, but IMHO
>>>>> we can start out with qcow2 and add the others as necssary.
>>>>>
>>>>> (if wanted, I can of course also add the others in a next version
>>>>> or as
>>>>> a follow up)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please! It would be nice to have all three at the same time. Or is
>>>> there any specific reason why you limit it to qcow2? Otherwise, users
>>>> will just ask why support for these is missing right away.
>>>
>>> No specific reason, it was just easier/quicker to implement one first.
>>> When we also allow raw files,
>>> should we also allow other extensions than '.raw'? not sure if there is
>>> one that
>>> is often used (since I think '.raw' is more a PVE thing)
>>>
>>
>> Right, raw is actually a bit of a headache because of that :P
>>
>> We could either:
>>
>> 1) have a list of common extensions for raw: .raw/.img/etc
>>
>> 1b) also treat files without extension as raw?
>>
>> 2) have a list of known extensions that are not raw and treat everything
>> else as raw, while logging an informational message
>>
>> I'd prefer 1), because we already require specific extensions for other
>> uploads.
>>
>> And likely we want to rename after/during upload, so images that are raw
>> for us always have a ".raw" extension? Otherwise, we need to be careful
>> enough to enforce the very same rules when parsing the import volume
>> name and thus mostly also have them set in stone for the future. The
>> advantage of the latter would be for the use case where one wants to
>> manually make accessible their already existing image folders without
>> using the API.
>>
> 
> actually thinking of renaming, i don't think that's necessary to do in
> the backend at all
> since the client will provide a target filename, we can just rename it
> in the ui
> to '.raw' for the user?
> 
> then we'd also not have to have a list of 'raw' formats on the backend
> at all?

Sounds good to me :)