XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Xen Orchestra Container Storage Interface (CSI) for Kubernetes

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Infrastructure as Code
    27 Posts 8 Posters 4.4k Views 8 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • CyrilleC Offline
      Cyrille Vates 🪐 DevOps Team @ThasianXi
      last edited by 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).

      jmaraJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
      • jmaraJ Offline
        jmara @Cyrille
        last edited by

        @Cyrille 👍

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R Offline
          robfox2
          last edited by

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

          CyrilleC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • CyrilleC Offline
            Cyrille Vates 🪐 DevOps Team @robfox2
            last edited by

            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/ 😉

            K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • K Offline
              koushik @Cyrille
              last edited by 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

              f38ec231-b27f-4163-8810-511c6c02d4ae-image.jpeg

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

              CyrilleC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • CyrilleC Offline
                Cyrille Vates 🪐 DevOps Team @koushik
                last edited by

                @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 🤔

                K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • K Offline
                  koushik @Cyrille
                  last edited by

                  @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?

                  CyrilleC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • CyrilleC Offline
                    Cyrille Vates 🪐 DevOps Team @koushik
                    last edited by

                    @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.

                    K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • K Offline
                      koushik @Cyrille
                      last edited by

                      @Cyrille Appreciate the help! Please keep posted.

                      CyrilleC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • CyrilleC Offline
                        Cyrille Vates 🪐 DevOps Team @koushik
                        last edited by

                        Hi @koushik,
                        Having read the RKE2 documentation, I understand that the only difference between the embedded CCM and the Xo CCM is that the latter does not have the ServiceLB LoadBalancer controller. The Xo CCM does everything else that the embedded CCM does (e.g. clearing the uninitilazed taint and setting the node IP) + it set the right providerID.

                        Disabling the embedded CCM will "only" result in the loss of the load balancer.

                        I would suggest disabling the RKE2 embedded CCM in order to use the Xo CCM as an external Cloud Controller Manager, as described in the RKE2 documentation. You need also to edit the kubelet configuration and set --kubelet-arg=cloud-provider=external.

                        You could then use another service to run the load balancer.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                        Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                        Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                        With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                        Register Login
                        • First post
                          Last post