71 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
71 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# Development Report for Feb 10, 2017
|
|
|
|
Sorry for slacking off last week on the report. We totally spaced it.
|
|
This week we will go over what happened last week and this week.
|
|
|
|
## Snapshot Design Changes
|
|
|
|
* https://github.com/docker/containerd/pull/496
|
|
|
|
After receiving feedback on the `snapshot.Driver` interface, now known as the
|
|
`Snapshotter`, it was found that the behavior of active and committed snapshots
|
|
was confusing. Specifically, it was hard to tell which methods to use based on
|
|
the state of the snapshot. It was also confusing which identifier to use based
|
|
on the state.
|
|
|
|
To clean this up, we moved to using "Active" and "Committed" as the type of a
|
|
snapshot, as opposed to the state of the snapshot. These lifecycle
|
|
relationships are such that "Active" snapshots can only be created from a
|
|
"Committed" snapshot and "Committed" snapshots must come from an "Active"
|
|
snapshot. We retain the concept of a parent for "Active" and "Committed"
|
|
snapshots, but clarified that only "Committed" snapshots can be a parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As part of this, we unified the keyspace of snapshots. For common operations,
|
|
such as removal and stat, we only have a single method that works for both
|
|
active and committed snapshots. For methods that take one or the other, the
|
|
restriction is called out. `Remove` and `Delete` were consolidated as part of
|
|
this. This also makes it easier to handle scenarios that use the snapshot
|
|
identity as a lock to coordinate multiple writers.
|
|
|
|
`Exists` and `Parent` have also be consolidated into single `Stat` call. This
|
|
returns an `Info` structure which includes information about state and
|
|
parentage. We also simplify the `Walk` method as part of this.
|
|
|
|
Effectively, we now have snapshots that are either active or committed and a
|
|
much smaller interface!
|
|
|
|
## Bundles Bundles Bundles
|
|
|
|
We spend time talking with people implementing Windows support as well as a few other users.
|
|
One the the major issues with our current approach was that bundles were a central part of our architecture.
|
|
The content and storage subsystems would produce bundles and the execution subsystem would consume them.
|
|
However, with a bundle being on the filesystem, having this concept does not work as smoothly on Windows
|
|
as it would for Unix platforms.
|
|
|
|
So the major design change is that bundles will be an implementation detail of the runtime and not a core
|
|
part of the API. You will no longer pass the bundle path to containerd, it will manage bundles internally
|
|
and the root filesystem mounts along with the spec, passed via the `Any` type, will be API fields for the
|
|
create request of a container.
|
|
|
|
## Runtimes
|
|
|
|
With the bundles change above we also need to make sure changes for where containers are created and who
|
|
does the supervision after creation.
|
|
|
|
The runtimes in containerd, things such as Linux, Windows, and Solaris, will be responsible for the
|
|
creation of containers and loading of containers when containerd boots.
|
|
|
|
The containerd core will be responsible for interfacing with the GRPC API and managing a common `Container`
|
|
interface that the runtimes produce. The supervision of containers will be handled in the core.
|
|
This is not much of a change from today, just refining where responsibilities lie.
|
|
|
|
## Progress and POC
|
|
|
|
Overall design has been a large focus for us at the moment. While containerd can run containers today it
|
|
is not optimized in terms of speed or design. With the work we did this week to make sure that containerd
|
|
will work across many different platforms with first class support, not as an after thought, we are in a good
|
|
position to really start on the development work and get a POC out within the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
This POC should give you a good idea of what containerd can do, its APIs, and how users will interact with
|
|
its various subsystems.
|