CSTACKEX-127: Primary storage-pool is getting created even if desired data LIFs are not reachable by sandeeplocharla · Pull Request #76 · NetApp/cloudstack

sandeeplocharla · 2026-07-08T01:21:09Z

Choosing IpInterface based on its status and affinity to the chosen aggregate

Description

This PR...

Fixed an issue in picking an unavailable IP while creating the storage pool.
When CloudStack creates an ONTAP primary storage pool, it now picks the best available network interface (LIF) using a priority-based selection:
- Best case: Uses a LIF homed on the same node as the storage aggregate — optimal I/O, no warning
- Degraded case: All home-node LIFs are down but a failover LIF is running on that node — pool is created, admin is warned
- Fallback case: No LIF at all on the aggregate's node, pool is created using a LIF from a different node, admin is warned with a latency note
- Failure case: No usable LIF anywhere, pool creation fails with a clear error

Types of changes

Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
Build/CI
Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Major
Minor

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Note: The following images have been captured for NFS3, the same would be the case for iSCSI.

Clearly, by the virtue of free space available, the plugin would choose sti246_vsim_ocvs040d_aggr1 by default.

Scenario-1 [pool_P1]: Happy path; No LIFs were down.

The first best available LIF with current node and home node matching with the chosen node has been picked.

Scenario-2 [pool_P2_1]: LIFs on 040d node were down; with one LIF whose current node: 040d, while its home node: 040c

Scenario-3 [pool_P3]: None of the 040d node LIFs are UP. First best available LIF is picked from 040c.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates the ONTAP primary storage workflow to select a reachable/usable data LIF based on operational status and node affinity (aggregate home node vs. failover vs. cross-node fallback), and surfaces warnings via pool details/alerts when selection is degraded.

Changes:

Adds node-aware, status-aware LIF selection in StorageStrategy.getNetworkInterface() and returns both the chosen LIF IP + an optional warning.
Captures the chosen aggregate’s node during volume creation to bias LIF selection toward optimal locality.
Updates lifecycle + tests to handle the new (lifIp, warning) result and emits storage alerts when degraded selection occurs.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategyTest.java	Expands unit tests for LIF status and node-affinity tiers; avoids mocking issues on newer JDKs.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/test/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycleTest.java	Updates mocks for new `Pair<String,String>` LIF return type and scope behavior.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/utils/OntapStorageUtils.java	Adds helper to send storage alerts for degraded LIF selection.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/utils/OntapStorageConstants.java	Adds constants for aggregate node/space fields and LIF state/location/warning keys.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java	Implements tiered LIF selection and tracks `chosenAggregateNode` from aggregate selection.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/lifecycle/OntapPrimaryDatastoreLifecycle.java	Persists selected LIF + warning and emits an alert during pool initialization.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/feign/model/IpInterface.java	Extends model with `state`, `enabled`, and `location` to support selection logic.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/feign/model/Aggregate.java	Extends model with `node` and setters needed for reading/constructing detailed aggregate info.
plugins/storage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/feign/client/AggregateFeignClient.java	Adds `@QueryMap` to request specific aggregate fields (node/space/state).

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

github-actions · 2026-07-10T04:59:09Z

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

suryag1201 · 2026-07-23T15:48:48Z

+            IpInterface currentNodeInterface = null;
+            IpInterface fallbackInterface = null;
+
+            for (IpInterface iface : response.getRecords()) {


use proper var name instead iface

suryag1201 · 2026-07-23T16:00:37Z

     * @return DataStore instance
     */
    @Override
    public DataStore initialize(Map<String, Object> dsInfos) {


this method is becoming very big, can we have some private method instead?

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-07-24T06:20:03Z

                logger.warn("Aggregate " + aggr.getName() + " is not in online state. Skipping this aggregate.");
                continue;
            } else if (aggrResp.getSpace() == null || aggrResp.getAvailableBlockStorageSpace() == null ||
                    aggrResp.getAvailableBlockStorageSpace() <= storage.getSize().doubleValue()) {


What is this check validating? How does it help determine that there isn't enough free space available in the aggregate?

Its skipping aggregates with available space less than the requested capacity for storage pool.

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-07-24T06:24:28Z

    }

    private void validateAndSelectAggregatesForVolumeCreation(String authHeader, String svmName, List<Aggregate> aggrs) {
        if (aggrs == null || aggrs.isEmpty()) {


I have a question on the flow here. This method is invoked during the connect workflow, where we apply a set of filters/validations on the aggregates. As soon as the workflow finds the first aggregate that satisfies the criteria, it breaks out of the loop and stores that aggregate in a class-level variable.

Later, during volume creation, we appear to be using this class-level variable with the assumption that it contains all eligible aggregates. However, based on the current flow, it seems to contain only the single aggregate that was selected before the loop exited. The code path in the createVolume() method (and the related changes in this PR) seems to rely on that variable.

Is this the intended behaviour?

My understanding was that we would retain all aggregates that pass the filtering criteria and, during volume creation, iterate through the eligible aggregates to select the most appropriate one. That would also allow us to place volumes on aggregates with more available capacity and achieve better load balancing of storage consumption instead of always using the first matching aggregate.

The break should not be there. So, its been corrected and tested. Was waiting for more comments to raise a diff. 'break' would be removed in the next commit.

sandeeplocharla self-assigned this Jul 8, 2026

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 8, 2026 01:21

sandeeplocharla requested review from piyush5netapp, rajiv-jain-netapp and suryag1201 as code owners July 8, 2026 01:21

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla July 8, 2026 01:21 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot added the status:has-conflicts label Jul 10, 2026

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Jul 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 14, 2026 06:36

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-127 branch from 2b19269 to 50d9045 Compare July 14, 2026 06:36

github-actions Bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Jul 14, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla July 14, 2026 06:36 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jul 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

sandeeplocharla added 3 commits July 15, 2026 10:41

Resolved merge conflicts

86f252a

Fixed merge conflicts and addressed comments

be44bb8

Fixed UT failure issue due to latest changes from main

52fc886

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 15, 2026 05:11

sandeeplocharla force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-127 branch from 50d9045 to 52fc886 Compare July 15, 2026 05:11

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of sandeeplocharla July 15, 2026 05:12 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jul 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...torage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java

Comment thread ...torage/volume/ontap/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/service/StorageStrategy.java

suryag1201 reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

sandeeplocharla commented Jul 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

suryag1201 Jul 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

suryag1201 Jul 23, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp Jul 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sandeeplocharla Jul 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp Jul 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sandeeplocharla Jul 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

sandeeplocharla commented Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading