Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > before I go on with the snapshots-in-api patchset, I wanted to floar
> > this and ask a few questions, as I'm having a hard time deciding how
> > we want to talk over the API.
> >
> > (Though as I've been typing this out, I think I now see how I want it
> > to look.)
> >
> > First, the basics: if you have lxcpath=/var/lib/lxc and take a first
> > snapshot of container c1, then the container will be
> > /var/lib/lxcsnaps/c1/snap0. Next snapshot will be
> > /var/lib/lxcsnaps/c1/snap1.
> > You can pass a text file containing a commit comment, which will simply be
> > stored at /var/lib/lxc/lxcsnaps/c0/snap0/comment, and a timestamp is
> > created at /var/lib/lxc/lxcsnaps/c0/snap0/tx.
> >
> > To restore that snap1 as container c2, I'm thinking you would
> >
> > c = lxc_container_new("c0", "/var/lib/lxc");
> > c2 = c->restore(c, "snap1", "c2");
> > lxc_container_put(c2);
> > lxc_container_put(c);
> >
> > (Note this doesn't match what's in the patch below). There are other
> > ways it could be done. For instance we could open the snapshot as
> > its own container and call restore on that, i.e.
> >
> > c = lxc_container_new("snap1", "/var/lib/lxcsnaps/c1");
> > c2 = c->restore(c, "c2");
> >
> > I think I like the first option better though as it keeps callers
> > from digging into the storage details. Thoughts?
> >
> > In addition, I'll add lxcapi_snapshot_destroy(), which will look like:
> >
> > c = lxc_container_new("c0", "/var/lib/lxc");
> > c->snapshot_destroy(c, "snap1");
> > lxc_container_put(c);
> >
> > As for snapshot_list, I'm thinking it will just look like:
> >
> > c = lxc_container_new("c0", "/var/lib/lxc");
> > ns = c->snapshot_entries(c, NULL, 0);
> > for (i=0; i<ns; i++) {
> > c2 = c->get_snapshot(c, i);
> > printf("name is %s, lxcpath %s\n", c->name, c->config_path);
> > lxc_container_put(c2);
> > }
> > lxc_container_put(c);
> >
> > with 'timestamp' and 'comment_file' fields being added to struct
> > container_struct, usually both NULL.
>
> So I think that makes sense and I also prefer the first option you
> described. Upon first read of your description it felt a bit weird
> having this called restore() since it doesn't actually restore the
> snapshot so much as create a new container based on it, but I suppose
> that's fine since restore(c, "snpa1", "c0") will probably do what you'd
> expect (restore previous state of a container from a snapshot name).
I like the cleaner API if we have restore go back to the original
container, but I don't like the added concerns about destroying
the original.
I suppose we could have
c = lxc_container_new("c0", "/var/lib/lxc");
c->restore("snap3");
always create a new snapshot of c0, destroy c0, then restore
snap3 to c0. Does that seem like a good behavior?
-serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lxc-devel mailing list
Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
