Xen Orchestra Container Storage Interface (CSI) for Kubernetes

jmara

@nathanael-h There should be no need to use an access token, because:
a) the personal account does not have access to the vates repo and can therefor not grant any privileges
b) is xenorchestra-csi-driver a public repo and all assets are public available

The only valid point can be rate limits but as this test setup usually does not invoke a massive load of docker pulls it should be neglectable.

@thasianxi
It looks like a mixup, the Repo / Deployment refers to the github repository name as docker image which is usually the case. Unfortunatly the packages (which are created have a different name) can you replace ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver:edge with ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi:edge in the manifest and retry?

Cheers
Jan M.

ThasianXi

@jmara Thank you for the input. All pods are running with caveats.

Prior to executing the installation, I updated the image name to ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi:edge in the manifests.
After executing the install, I had to manually edit the image name in the DaemonSet, from ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver:edge to ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi:edge.
After editing the DaemonSet, the node pods restarted and transitioned to running.

However, the controller pod was still attempting to pull this image: ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver:edge and never transitioned to running.
To correct that, I edited the image name in the Deployment, from ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver:edge to ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi:edge.

Thus after editing the DaemonSet and Deployment, the pods transitioned to running.

kgp -nkube-system | grep csi*
csi-xenorchestra-controller-b5b695fb-ts4b9               3/3     Running   0          4m8s
csi-xenorchestra-node-27qzg                              3/3     Running   0          6m21s
csi-xenorchestra-node-4bflf                              3/3     Running   0          6m20s
csi-xenorchestra-node-8tb5m                              3/3     Running   0          6m20s
csi-xenorchestra-node-t9m78                              3/3     Running   0          6m20s

ThasianXi

Just a follow-up that the PV and PVC creation was successful.
All pods stable since previous post.

k get pv
NAME              CAPACITY   ACCESS MODES   RECLAIM POLICY   STATUS      CLAIM                        STORAGECLASS          VOLUMEATTRIBUTESCLASS   REASON   AGE
dtw-6m            2Gi        RWO            Retain           Bound       kube-system/xo-csi-test      csi-xenorchestra-sc   <unset>                          10h

k get pvc -nkube-system
NAME          STATUS   VOLUME   CAPACITY   ACCESS MODES   STORAGECLASS          VOLUMEATTRIBUTESCLASS   AGE
xo-csi-test   Bound    dtw-6m   2Gi        RWO            csi-xenorchestra-sc   <unset>                 9h

kgp -nkube-system | grep csi*
csi-xenorchestra-controller-b5b695fb-ts4b9               3/3     Running   0          43h
csi-xenorchestra-node-27qzg                              3/3     Running   0          43h
csi-xenorchestra-node-4bflf                              3/3     Running   0          43h
csi-xenorchestra-node-8tb5m                              3/3     Running   0          43h
csi-xenorchestra-node-t9m78                              3/3     Running   0          43h

Cyrille

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback

There was an error in the Makefile used to build the Docker image for the CSI. The name was incorrect... The fix that we pushed a month ago didn't trigger the CI

I manually ran the CI to rebuild the edge image with the correct name, which is now available at ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver:edge

I delete the wrong one (ghcr.io/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi:edge).

jmara

@Cyrille

robfox2

Is this in prod yet or is it still considered under development?

Cyrille

Hi @robfox2, a release candidate version is about to be published. After that, we will wait for feedback before releasing a stable version.
Keep an eye out for the release blog post on https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/tag/release/

koushik

@Cyrille

we have RKE@ managing the cluster via its own CCM and seems xenorchestra is not supporting other external CCM providers and it requires XenOrchestra CCM to be mandatory which we cannot do as RKE2 Managing our clusters.

https://github.com/vatesfr/xenorchestra-csi-driver/blob/main/docs/topology.md#is-the-ccm-mandatory

Problem:

AS RKE2 our CCM, we can't run xen CCM and hence below node objects cannot be managed by xen.

topology.k8s.xenorchestra/pool_id = <uuid>
topology.k8s.xenorchestra/host_id = <uuid>
topology.k8s.xenorchestra/pool_name_label = <name>
topology.k8s.xenorchestra/host_name_label = <name>

We tried adding them manually on the nodes, but still the PVC is waiting and complaining

Is there a workaround available for now? or is it something getting released as part of the release cycle?

Cyrille

@koushik
I don't kown RKE2. Is it its own CCM which set the node providerID?

Regarding the CSI, it needs the labels set by the CCM to know the pool topology. Try to enable only the cloud-node-label-sync in the CCM:

--controllers=cloud-node-label-sync

I'm not sure if that's enough. Maybe you'll have an issue with the provider ID, too

koushik

@Cyrille Thanks for the response.

Regarding the --controllers=cloud-node-label-sync flag: RKE2 does not use an external cloud-controller-manager (CCM) by default unless explicitly configured; it relies on its internal node controllers. Because of this, it won't automatically sync the topology.k8s.xenorchestra/* labels required by your CSI topology setup.

The main issue we are running into: Even though we applied the topology labels to the node objects manually, the XenOrchestra CSI driver's ExternalProvisioning loop is failing with a ProvisioningFailed error (error generating accessibility requirements: no topology key found for node).

This happens because the CSI driver expects the specific node providerID format to match XenServer / XenOrchestra constraints so it can look up and validate those manual topology keys.

Because RKE2 sets its own providerID formatting (providerID: rke2://koushik-xen01), the CSI driver cannot map the node to its Xen pool configuration.

Is there any flag or configuration in the CSI driver to completely bypass the strict CCM/Topology validation logic for non-native cloud setups, or do we have to wait for an update that allows an option like is-the-ccm-mandatory=false?

Cyrille

@koushik a dit:

Is there any flag or configuration in the CSI driver to completely bypass the strict CCM/Topology validation logic for non-native cloud setups, or do we have to wait for an update that allows an option like is-the-ccm-mandatory=false?

The CSI is designed to run with the Xen Orchestra provider ID because it enables the CSI node server to identify the VM on which it is running. This also means that the node server itself has no access to the Xen Orchestra API; only the CSI controller server has access.

There are no plans to remove this dependency in the next release. Sorry about your issue, we will investigate and see what we can do about that.

koushik

@Cyrille Appreciate the help! Please keep posted.