Add support to RBD erasure code pools

BryanMLima commented 1 month ago

Description

This PR adds support for Ceph erasure code pools, allowing users to specify the data pool required for using this type of Ceph pool.

Types of changes

[ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
[ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
[x] Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
[ ] Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
[ ] build/CI
[ ] test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

[ ] Major
[x] Minor

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Details of the data pool in the UI

How Has This Been Tested?

The following tests were executed to verify this patch; tests were executed on replicated pools as well to check if this patch would interfere in it.

Deploy of VM in a Ceph replicated pool
Deploy of VM in a Ceph erasure code pool
Volume resize in a Ceph replicated pool
Volume resize in a Ceph erasure code pool
Live migration of VM with volume allocated in a Ceph replicated pool
Live migration of VM with volume allocated in a Ceph erasure code pool
Attach, mount and utilization of volume in a Ceph replicated pool
Attach, mount and utilization of volume in a Ceph erasure code pool
Template creation from a volume in a Ceph replicated pool
Deploy of VM from the template based on volume in a Ceph replicated pool
Template creation from a volume in a Ceph erasure code pool
Deploy of VM from the template based on volume in a Ceph erasure code pool
Volume migration from/to Ceph replicated pool to/from NFS
Volume migration from/to Ceph replicated pool to/from iSCSI (SharedMountPoint)
Volume migration from/to Ceph erasure code pool to/from NFS
Volume migration from/to Ceph erasure code pool to/from iSCSI (SharedMountPoint)
Volume migration from/to Ceph erasure code pool to/from Ceph replicated pool
Snapshot of a volume from Ceph replicated pool
Revert snapshot of a volume from Ceph replicated pool
Snapshot of a volume from Ceph erasure code pool
Revert snapshot of a volume from Ceph erasure code pool

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

I tried to migrate volumes from different type of pool types (NFS, iSCSI and RBD) to each other, verifying that the migration was successful.

codecov[bot] commented 1 month ago

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 6.79612% with 96 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 15.78%. Comparing base (f10d9fe) to head (c873845). Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...hypervisor/kvm/storage/StoragePoolInformation.java	0.00%	35 Missing :warning:
...ain/java/com/cloud/api/query/QueryManagerImpl.java	0.00%	16 Missing :warning:
.../hypervisor/kvm/storage/LibvirtStorageAdaptor.java	0.00%	12 Missing :warning:
.../hypervisor/kvm/storage/KVMStoragePoolManager.java	0.00%	10 Missing :warning:
...e/cloudstack/api/response/StoragePoolResponse.java	0.00%	6 Missing :warning:
...torage/datastore/provider/DefaultHostListener.java	0.00%	4 Missing :warning:
...oud/hypervisor/kvm/storage/LibvirtStoragePool.java	0.00%	4 Missing :warning:
.../cloud/hypervisor/kvm/storage/KVMPhysicalDisk.java	70.00%	1 Missing and 2 partials :warning:
...ud/hypervisor/kvm/storage/KVMStorageProcessor.java	0.00%	2 Missing :warning:
...CreatePrivateTemplateFromVolumeCommandWrapper.java	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:
... and 3 more

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #9808 +/- ## ============================================ - Coverage 16.60% 15.78% -0.83% - Complexity 12564 12565 +1 ============================================ Files 5235 5628 +393 Lines 460088 492304 +32216 Branches 58295 62107 +3812 ============================================ + Hits 76408 77714 +1306 - Misses 375354 406114 +30760 - Partials 8326 8476 +150 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/9808/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [uitests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/9808/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | `4.04% <ø> (?)` | | | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/cloudstack/pull/9808/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache) | `16.60% <6.79%> (-0.01%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=apache#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

BryanMLima commented 1 month ago

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan commented 1 month ago

@BryanMLima a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan commented 1 month ago

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11365

apache / cloudstack