Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/4] qemu-img: add max-size subcommand

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:15:00AM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:02 AM, John Snow <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03/03/2017 04:38 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> RFCv1:
> >>>  * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet.  Please 
> >>> review
> >>>    the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
> >>>    approach.
> >>>
> >>> Users and management tools sometimes need to know the size required for a 
> >>> new
> >>> disk image so that an LVM volume, SAN LUN, etc can be allocated ahead of 
> >>> time.
> >>> Image formats like qcow2 have non-trivial metadata that makes it hard to
> >>> estimate the exact size without knowledge of file format internals.
> >>>
> >>> This patch series introduces a new qemu-img subcommand that calculates the
> >>> required size for both image creation and conversion scenarios.
> >>>
> >>> The conversion scenario is:
> >>>
> >>>   $ qemu-img max-size -f raw -O qcow2 input.img
> >>>   107374184448
> >>
> >> Isn't this the minimal size required to convert input.img?
> >>
> >
> > It's an upper bound for the property being measured, which is current
> > allocation size, not maximum potential size after growth.
> 
> From my point of view, this is the minimal size you must allocate if you
> want to convert the image to logical volume.
> 
> >
> >>>
> >>> Here an existing image file is taken and the output includes the space 
> >>> required
> >>> for data from the input image file.
> >>>
> >>> The creation scenario is:
> >>>
> >>>   $ qemu-img max-size -O qcow2 --size 5G
> >>>   196688
> >>
> >> Again, this is the minimal size.
> >>
> >> So maybe use min-size?
> >>
> >> Or:
> >>
> >>     qemu-img measure -f raw -O qcow2 input.img
> >>
> >> Works nicely with other verbs like create, convert, check.
> >>
> >
> > Measure what? This is strictly less descriptive even if "max-size" isn't
> > a verb.
> 
> measure-size?

You're right, the sub-command should be a verb.

> >> Now about the return value, do we want to return both the minimum size
> >> and the maximum size?
> >>
> >> For ovirt use case, we currently calculate the maximum size by multiplying
> >> by 1.1. We use this when doing automatic extending of ovirt thin 
> >> provisioned
> >> disk. We start with 1G lv, and extend it each time it becomes full, 
> >> stopping
> >> when we reach virtual size * 1.1. Using more accurate calculation instead
> >> can be nicer.
> >>
> >> So we can retrun:
> >>
> >> {
> >>     "min-size": 196688,
> >>     "max-size": 5905580032
> >> }
> >>
> >> Anyway thanks for working on this!
> >>
> >
> > It sounds like you want something different from what was intuited by
> > Maor Lipchuck. There are two things to estimate:
> >
> > (A) An estimate of the possible size of an image after conversion to a
> > different format, and
> > (B) An estimate of the possible size after full allocation.
> >
> > I got the sense that Maor was asking for (A), but perhaps I am wrong
> > about that. However, both are "maximums" in different senses.
> 
> Both are minimum when you have to allocate the space.
> 
> Maor ask about A because he is working on fixing allocation when
> converting existing files, but we also have other use cases like B.

Daniel Berrange is also interested in the size of a fully populated
image file.  I'll expand the patch series to report both sizes.

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature