Re: [pve-devel] Allow dynamic pool name discovery on ZFSPoolPlugin

[Pablo Ruiz <pablo.ruiz@gmail.com>]

Hi Thomas,

I could try that one, but I am not sure I understood what you mean. Can you
provide an example of the syntax you envision for storage.cfg?

Regards

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:49 AM Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 21.11.20 14:08, Pablo Ruiz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just made a little custom storage plugin which basically
> > overrides/extends ZFSPoolPluging so the pool name instead of being fixed,
> > can be 'dynamically' guessed on each cluster node.
> >
> > While adding some new nodes to one of our current clusters, due to
> hardware
> > differences, we ended up with new nodes having a different zpool's layout
> > than the already existing nodes. Our existing nodes had a pool named
> > 'rpool/data' (a dataset nested into system's main pool). While the new
> > nodes have a dedicated pool (data) independent of 'rpool'. So we needed a
> > way to have the same storage use different backing zfs pools on each
> server
> > (ie. on old servers it should use 'rpool/data', while on newer ones it
> > should be using 'data').
> >
> > Currently proxmox does not allow overriding an storage.cfg's property
> > 'per-node'. So we came up with a simple custom plugin which basically
> looks
> > up the pool with an attribute like 'pve:id=$storeid', and uses this pool
> > obtained dynamically.
> >
> > We could have simply added a new store with a different id, but that
> would
> > break our orchestration and automatic deployment of machines, and add
> some
> > additional management issues by having to track the store of each
> machine,
> > specially if/when moving vms around.
> >
> > That said, the plugin works, but I think this feature may be of use to
> > others. Would a patch against upstream ZFSPoolPlugin accepted, so we can
> > avoid this custom plugin in the future?
> >
> > I've posted the custom plugin as a gist:
> > https://gist.github.com/pruiz/5d7fbd75efb413ac15d2d0e3ef54f32a
> >
>
> thanks for sharing your solution!
>
> It's an interesting way to solve this, the thing I do not really like, is
> that the storage config is now not the only single source of truth for
> "which pool to use/import" anymore
>
> We could actually add a nodename to pool mapping as a property to the
> ZFS Pool storage config schema instead, that'd would keep this information
> contained to the configuration and make lookup a bit cheaper.
>
> cheers,
> Thomas
>
>
>