Proposal: Data Disk restore from Image #824
Conversation
gardener-robot-ci-3
added
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
gardener-robot
added
area/documentation
gardener-robot-ci-2
removed
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
| It would be painful and errorprone to specify this in the shoot `WorkerConfig` section, so it is best that the MCM Azure provider take care | ||
| of forming the fully qualified azure disk `snapshotID` and forming the `MachineClass` for azure which is then operated on by MCM Azure Provider. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two points:
a) I am not sure why you consider error prone the copy-pasting or an azure UID compared to MCM constructing. That being said it is a trick used often by the azure controllers so we can do it too, but I don't necessarily find it easier.
b) Main issue is that you need at least to also add the resource group to the spec. Otherwise you are constrained to using disks only in the same resource group and that would make it useless for the vsmp scenario, as I imagine they want to restore from some knowd resource in a RG different from the shoots.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a) I removed this statement.
b) added resourceGroup as an optional field, though I am unsure whether this is needed for vsmp case. They just appear to use the default resource group. It appears -g default is specified everywhere in their script.
| Currently, we have no support either in the shoot spec or in the [MCM Azure](https://github.com/gardener/machine-controller-manager-provider-azure) for restoring Azure Data Disks from snapshots | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
| The primary motivation is to support [Integration of vSMP MemeoryOne in Azure #](https://github.com/gardener/gardener-extension-provider-azure/issues/788). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that the proposal can stand on its own without any reference to vsmp.
gardener-robot-ci-3
added
reviewed/ok-to-test
elankath
changed the title
gardener-robot-ci-3
added
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
gardener-robot-ci-2
removed
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
… name across providers
gardener-robot-ci-1
added
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
gardener-robot-ci-3
removed
the
reviewed/ok-to-test
| dataVolumes: # <-- NEW SUB_SECTION | ||
| - name: vsmp1 | ||
| imageReference: imgRef # ID or URN (publisher:offer:sku:version) of the image from which to create a disk | ||
| resourceGroup: # (optional) Name of resource group. Will take default if omitted |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the resource group supposed to do ? I think you don't need to reference a resource group to consume an image right ?
| kind: WorkerConfig | ||
| dataVolumes: # <-- NEW SUB_SECTION | ||
| - name: vsmp1 | ||
| imageReference: imgRef # ID or URN (publisher:offer:sku:version) of the image from which to create a disk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So is the plan for MCM to parse the ID provided and resolve it to an image? MCM-azure already has a struct to ref these in https://github.com/gardener/machine-controller-manager-provider-azure/blob/e86af1fe835f427b1d16b4316b3f02752bd7cd73/pkg/azure/api/providerspec.go#L145 . Why not use that instead ?
How to categorize this PR?
/area documentation
/kind enhancement
/platform azure
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #788
Special notes for your reviewer:
Release note: