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

[Dominik Csapak]

On 3/26/25 13:05, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 26.03.25 um 12:47 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.
>>>
>>
>> I'd also use a list (e.g. for now '.raw', '.img')
>>
>> renaming is a good idea, but how should we do that? e.g.
>>
>> foo.img -> foo.img.raw ?
>>
>> because if we'd do foo.img -> foo.raw i think it's more likely
>> to get a collision than when we keep the .img in the name
>>
>> what do you think?
> 
> Yes, IMHO, simply attaching .raw is better.
> 
>> Side note (can be done later; or not) do we want to support compressed
>> files?
>> (gz, xz, etc.?) just noticed that e.g. the home assistant disk image is a
>> qcow2.xz file
> 
> Yeah, I think it makes sense. We'll just need to adapt the "needs
> extraction" logic?

i actually thought more about uncompressing on download/upload, otherwise
we can't check the file until importing...

in any case, this could still be done as a follow up, I'd like to concentrate
on uncompressed images for now if that's ok with you?