> > That said, I'm not sure if this is a valid concern since we don't have such > CSI functions yet. So input from folks would be very welcome!
FYI, I just opened an issue in the CSI community: https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/issues/212 - Jie On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Chun-Hung Hsiao <chhs...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > Thanks Zhitao for the summary. My thoughts are: > > For `SHRINK_VOLUME`, I feel option 2 is appropriate, as it gives the > component that actually applies the operation to decide what the resulting > free disk space would become. Option 3 is also acceptable. > > For `GROW_VOLUME`, I actually prefer option 1 more, and I think it can > handle more cases, including CSI volumes. To be more concrete, here is a > prototype I would suggest: > ``` > message GrowVolume { > Resource volume = 1; > Resource addition = 2; > } > ``` > Potentially, we may let a framework to grow `volume` with either an > existing `PATH` volume or a `RAW` storage pool. Neither option 2 nor 3 can > provide such functionality, because it cannot specify where the extra space > comes from. > > That said, I'm not sure if this is a valid concern since we don't have such > CSI functions yet. So input from folks would be very welcome! > > On Mar 16, 2018 11:12 AM, "Zhitao Li" <zhitaoli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Chun, Greg, Gastón and I are working on supporting resizing of persistent > volume[1]. See [2] for the design doc in length. > > The proposed new offer operation and corresponding operator API are in > following two patches: > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66049/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66052 > > Our intention is to eventually support resizing of not only persistent > volumes, but also CSI volumes[3] introduced after Mesos 1.5 in the same set > of API, so we are declaring the API as experimental in its first release > version. > > We also want to make sure the API is reasonable to use to framework authors > and operators. > > Considering the above, both APIs need to include the original volume as > resource. Some alternatives on extra fields: > 1) size difference in Resource format: this may not be applicable in CSI > volume; > 2) size difference in Scalar value: this can be applicable in both CSI and > persistent volume case, since there is always a quantitive difference. We > can add extra CSI only fields once the spec is defined; > 3) target volume in `Resource` format: this may not be possible for any CSI > volume because the implementation could change certain metadata, so we did > not take this approach. > > Therefore, we are taking option 2) in current patches. > > Please let me know what you think. Thanks. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4965 > [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z16okNG8mlf2eA6NyW_PUmBfNFs_ > 6EOaPzPtwYNVQUQ/edit# > [3] https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/master/docs/csi.md > > -- > Cheers, > > Zhitao Li >
