QoS Support (Capacity IOPS on the pool, Create Offering with QoS and Resize Changes for IOPS) by suryag1201 · Pull Request #102 · NetApp/cloudstack

suryag1201 · 2026-09-15T18:38:49Z

Description

QoS Support includes:
1- Capacity IOPS on the pool,
2- Create Disk/Compute offering with QoS
3- Resize changes for QoS

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?

Performed the below testing for ISCSI and NFS both
1- Created the compute/disk offering with CustomIOPS and Fix IOPS both (min 2000, max 10000)
2- Created a Storage Pool with Total IOPS 5000 - It will just store the value in DB
3- Create a VM with Fix IOPS (ROOT + 1 DATA) - Created Lun/File, QoS policy got created and attached to file/lun
4- Create a VM with Custom IOPS (min 2000, max 5000) (ROOT + 1 DATA) - Created Lun/File, new QoS policy got created and attached to file/lun
5- Create a VM with Fix IOPS (ROOT + 1 DATA) again - Failed with error saying there is no more IOPS on a pool
6- Change the Total IOPS on pool - worked and new VM creation also went fine.
7- Resize the Volume, QoS existing field got populated and changed the min and max value - that also worked by creating new QoS if not found and attached to the file/Lun
8- Tested on FAS platform where Min QoS is set 1000 and it throw the error in logs, not on UI as UI is not using the thrown message from vendor
9- Tested on FAS platform where Min QoS is set 0 and VM created successfully.
10- Tested with No QoS - Success

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

github-actions · 2026-09-16T18:11:33Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.78%
Branch coverage	18.92%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-09-16T20:17:41Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.80%
Branch coverage	18.94%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-09-17T17:22:45Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.79%
Branch coverage	18.93%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T05:33:46Z

+
        CloudStackVolume request = iscsi
-                ? createCloneLunRequest(storagePool, details, volumeInfo, templatePoolRef, templateId)
+                ? createCloneLunRequest(storagePool, details, volumeInfo, templatePoolRef, templateId, qosPolicy)


can you help reminding me the reason for keeping this implementation like this instead strategy specific implementation ?

Here, we are just creating the clone request the actual logic for file and lun are in specific strategy only.
it is also in same line with create, delete, and update.

github-actions · 2026-09-21T05:38:20Z

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

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T05:43:45Z

            if (userVmDetails != null) {
-                String minIops = userVmDetails.get(MIN_IOPS);
-                String maxIops = userVmDetails.get(MAX_IOPS);
+                String minIops = userVmDetails.get(VmDetailConstants.MIN_IOPS);


can you check for setters also for iops specific statements?

From community, someone already raised the PR so i copied the same code as per the PR, will check the setter and update

I checked the code and it is setting the value like deployVmData['details[0].minIops'] = this.minIops
deployVmData['details[0].maxIops'] = this.maxIops
So, the issue was with get only

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T05:45:55Z

+            return;
+        }
+        VolumeQosPolicy policy = getVolumeQosPolicyByUuid(policyUuid);
+        if (policy.getObjectCount() != null && policy.getObjectCount() > 0) {


what if policy is retuned as null? it can be potentials candidate for NPE.

added this check

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T05:48:11Z


    @Override
-    public void resize(DataObject data, AsyncCompletionCallback<CreateCmdResult> callback) {}
+    public void resize(DataObject data, AsyncCompletionCallback<CreateCmdResult> callback) {


Lets add todo for actual size specific impl until satvika's changes are not in

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T06:02:08Z

    @RequestLine("PATCH /api/storage/luns/{uuid}")
    @Headers({"Authorization: {authHeader}", "Content-Type: application/json"})
-    void updateLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, Lun lun);
+    JobResponse updateLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, Lun lun);


can you watch for usage of this method, have you updated all of them for this signature change ?

@suryag1201 Some of the Ontap version has mix of return code for patch lun, 200 or 202. Could you please cross check if after 9.15.1, all version follows same code.

created this task to address review comment: https://netapp.atlassian.net/browse/CSTACKEX-335

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T06:04:10Z

+                    "Unable to determine whether the ONTAP cluster is AFF or FAS");
+        }
+        for (ClusterNode node : response.getRecords()) {
+            if (node == null || Boolean.FALSE.equals(node.getAllFlashOptimized())) {


null for node also treat this as non-AFF, this is not intended behaviour, right ?

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T06:06:36Z

    fetchData () {
      this.loading = true
+      if (this.resource.size != null) {
+        this.form.size = Math.round(this.resource.size / (1024 * 1024 * 1024))


math.round is not required as we discussed

rebased the branch so this code change is not present under this PR

I did not get the response, I can still see the method used.

there was some issue with the rebase, now this change not present

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-09-21T06:09:35Z

-        this.form.diskofferingid = this.offerings[0].id || ''
-        this.customDiskOffering = this.offerings[0].iscustomized || false
-        this.customDiskOfferingIops = this.offerings[0].iscustomizediops || false
+        const currentOffering = (json.listdiskofferingsresponse.diskoffering || [])[0]


how can we ensure it will not regress any existing workflow?

rebased the branch so this code change is not present under this PR

rajiv-jain-netapp

you have got conflicts

github-actions · 2026-09-28T07:42:28Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.79%
Branch coverage	18.93%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

suryag1201 · 2026-09-18T09:18:16Z

+                storagePool, details, volumeObject, qosPolicy);
+        try {
+            CloudStackVolume created = storageStrategy.createCloudStackVolume(request);
+            persistQosPolicyDetails(volumeObject.getId(), qosPolicy);


check if qos is null

if there is no QoS, workflows are working fine.
Testing section also updated with details

github-actions · 2026-09-28T17:48:50Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.79%
Branch coverage	18.93%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-10-01T05:41:21Z

                storageStrategy.deleteCloudStackVolume(cloudStackVolumeRequest);
+                if (qosPolicyDetail != null) {
+                    volumeDetailsDao.removeDetail(volumeInfo.getId(), OntapStorageConstants.QOS_POLICY_UUID);
+                    storageStrategy.deleteVolumeQosPolicy(qosPolicyDetail.getValue());


you need to handle the exception here since you already have deleted the cloudstack volume above, we can not make this method fail. Lets add logger.error in exception case and this has to pass.

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-10-01T05:44:12Z

+            return created;
+        } catch (RuntimeException e) {
+            if (qosPolicy != null) {
+                storageStrategy.deleteVolumeQosPolicy(qosPolicy.getUuid());


Do ensure to check whether intended policy is not shared one before delete as part of rollback.

deleteVolumeQosPolicy method will check for Object count before performing delete operation

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-10-01T05:50:22Z

        StorageStrategy storageStrategy = StorageProviderFactory.getStrategy(ontapStorage);
        boolean isValid = storageStrategy.connect();
        if (isValid) {
+            details.put(OntapStorageConstants.IS_AFF, Boolean.toString(storageStrategy.isAff()));


isAFF also throwing an exception for one scenario, it is not handled here

Current code never reads is_capacity_optimized or is_perf_optimized for isAFF. It only checks for is_all_flash_optimized and make the isAFF as true as per this field "is_all_flash_optimized".

rajiv-jain-netapp · 2026-10-01T05:56:39Z

+                    "Unable to determine whether the ONTAP cluster is AFF or FAS");
+        }
+        for (ClusterNode node : response.getRecords()) {
+            if (node != null && Boolean.FALSE.equals(node.getAllFlashOptimized())) {


What happens if node.getAllFlashOptimized() returns null for a node? With the current implementation, that scenario would still result in the node being classified as AFF. It would be safer to add an explicit else block to handle such cases and avoid incorrect classification due to unexpected or missing values.

github-actions · 2026-10-01T06:55:08Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.79%
Branch coverage	18.93%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T03:43:14Z

    @RequestLine("PATCH /api/storage/luns/{uuid}")
    @Headers({"Authorization: {authHeader}", "Content-Type: application/json"})
-    void updateLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, Lun lun);
+    JobResponse updateLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, Lun lun);


@suryag1201 Some of the Ontap version has mix of return code for patch lun, 200 or 202. Could you please cross check if after 9.15.1, all version follows same code.

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T03:43:53Z

    @RequestLine("DELETE /api/storage/luns/{uuid}")
    @Headers({"Authorization: {authHeader}"})
-    void deleteLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, @QueryMap Map<String, Object> queryMap);
+    JobResponse deleteLun(@Param("authHeader") String authHeader, @Param("uuid") String uuid, @QueryMap Map<String, Object> queryMap);


same here, check for 200 or 202 both.

I do not have 9.15.1 cluster, i will check this

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T03:44:48Z

-    private Integer minThroughputIops = null;
-
+    @JsonProperty("fixed")
+    private Fixed fixed;


Why not rename this file as QosPolicy as this model is also used for File qos also ?

u mean from VolumeQoSPolicy to QoSPolicy?

this file is already existing and usage is also 67 places, we can take this up later if required

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T03:45:58Z

+    @JsonInclude(JsonInclude.Include.NON_NULL)
+    public static class Fixed {
+        @JsonProperty("capacity_shared")
+        private Boolean capacityShared;


have default value for this incase we don get these field

If the field is left unset, @JsonInclude(NON_NULL) omits it, and ONTAP treats a missing capacity_shared as false.

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T03:48:24Z

                    + ONTAP_MIN_VOLUME_SIZE_IN_BYTES + " bytes (20 MB)");
        }
+        // IOPS capacity is optional; when left blank no pool-level IOPS ceiling is enforced.
+        if (capacityIops != null && capacityIops <= 0) {


we should have capacityIops == null check also for API user, otherwise null will be set in details.

it will not store capacityIOPS in details map

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T04:16:15Z

                logger.error("createCloudStackVolume: " + errMsg);
                throw new CloudRuntimeException(errMsg);
            }
+            if (cloudstackVolume.getFile() != null && cloudstackVolume.getFile().getQosPolicy() != null) {


will a file have a qos already attached if we are checking != null ? is there a default qos attached when file is created ?

QoS value, i am setting during request creation and using it here for the patch operation after file create

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-05T04:16:42Z

            }
+            if (cloudstackVolume.getFile() != null && cloudstackVolume.getFile().getQosPolicy() != null) {
+                try {
+                    updateCloudStackVolume(cloudstackVolume);


is this part create workflow or update ?

this update method will patch the file with QoS

github-actions · 2026-10-05T15:15:11Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.78%
Branch coverage	18.93%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

suryag1201 requested review from piyush5netapp, rajiv-jain-netapp and sandeeplocharla as code owners September 15, 2026 18:38

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Sep 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot added the status:has-conflicts label Sep 21, 2026

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Sep 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Sep 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

suryag1201 force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-279 branch from eca1e9a to cfdc801 Compare September 28, 2026 06:39

github-actions Bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Sep 28, 2026

suryag1201 commented Sep 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Oct 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Gupta, Surya added 11 commits October 1, 2026 11:23

[CSTACKEX-279] Add Capacity IOPS for Storage Pool

37fdde9

[CSTACKEX-279] QoS for Disk and Compute Offering

c14488b

[CSTACKEX-279] Added QoS Client

f0c41f8

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix CustomIOPS bug

5df2947

[CSTACKEX-279] Volume Resize QoS

0f49f1c

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

1dc2a20

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

fc20ff3

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

8b626f3

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

71dd7fc

[CSTACKEX-279] Resync the code and fix the QoS issue for ROOT volume

7075e88

[CSTACKEX-279] Resync the code and fix the QoS issue for ROOT volume

7cff76a

Gupta, Surya added 3 commits October 1, 2026 11:23

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix build issues

d6cb3fa

[CSTACKEX-279] UI Fixes

29669a4

[CSTACKEX-279] Resolved Review Comments

9e8fe3e

suryag1201 force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-279 branch from d3ba527 to 9e8fe3e Compare October 1, 2026 05:56

rajiv-jain-netapp reviewed Oct 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

piyush5netapp reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

[CSTACKEX-279] Address review comments

f594892

Conversation

suryag1201 commented Sep 15, 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?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 16, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 16, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 17, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

suryag1201 Sep 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rajiv-jain-netapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 28, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

suryag1201 commented Sep 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

suryag1201 Sep 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal