►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Data Protection Workgroup Meeting 20210224
Description
Kubernetes Data Protection Workgroup Meeting - 24 February 2021
Meeting Notes/Agenda: -
Find out more about the Data Protection WG here: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-data-protection
Moderator: Xiangqian Yu (Google)
A
A
So
today,
let's
see
well,
I
just
got
pinned
by
sean
jensen
he's
coming:
okay,
oh
let's
just
get
started
anyway.
So
today,
first
we
will
do
a
design
review
for
the
warning
group
cap
and
and
then
we
will
do
a
quick
update
of
the
data
production
white
paper
and
yeah.
After
that's
open
issues.
B
Yeah
I
joined
about
there's
something
wrong
with
my
zoom.
Sorry
guys.
A
It's
okay,
so,
okay,
so
I
just
since
the
today.
The
main
topic
today
is
to
do
a
review
of
the
voting
group
cap
yeah.
So
we
can
just
start
with
that.
Shantian.
Do
you
have
anything
else
you
want
to
go
over
before
we
start
reviewing
the
cap.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we
actually
reviewed
this
a
few
times
already.
I
believe
we
reviewed
this
in
this
working
group
meeting
before
and
also
we
had
several
separate
meetings
to
review
it
so
and
I
have
updated
the
cap
made
some
updates
so
since
it
has
been
a
while.
So
probably
I
don't
have
to
go
over
the
whole
thing,
but
maybe
just
to
go
over.
A
The
the
main
proposal
again
so
this
cap
is
to
in
this
cup
we
propose
to
have
a
few
new
crds
so
that
we
can
actually
create
a
a
group
of
multiple
volumes
and
then
we
want
to
be
able
to
take
a
group
snapshot
or
consistent
group
snapshot
from
that,
and-
and
we
are-
we
talked
about
like
multiple
ways
of
creating
this
group,
and
so
I
think
there
are
several
different
revisions
of
that.
So
let
me
just
let
me
just
go
over
what
we
have
here
in
the
latest
cap.
A
So,
let's
see
so
we
have
several
ways
to
create
a
create
a
volume
group.
So
I
think
that
at
one
point
we
talked
about
like
mutable
immutable
and
then
we
decided
that
it's
getting
too
complicated.
So
right
now
we
only
support
mutable
volume
groups.
A
If
a
driver
has
that
capability,
of
course,
so
so
that
so
for
so
one
way
is
that
we
can
first
create
an
empty
calling
group
and
and
then
we
can
create
a
pvc
providing
an
existing
one
group
name
and
as
a
result,
the
pvc
will
be
added
to
the
group
and
then
in
the
wording
group.
We
also
have
a
status
that
shows
what
pbcs
are
added
to
the
warning
group.
A
So
for
this
there
is
a
one
capability
which
is
the
in
the
csi
capability.
One
group
capability,
so
csgr
will
have
to
support
that
capability
to
be
able
to
put
this
way.
A
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
because
there
are
several
ways
right
so
so
the
first
way
is
just
I'm
just
talking
about.
The
first
way
is
that
you
just
create
a
one
group
first
and
then
you
add
a
new
volume
to
that
group,
and
then
the
second
one
is
to
modify,
because
not
every
driver
can
support
and
modify.
That's
why
this
is
separate,
so
we
actually
need
a
separate
capability
in
the
css
driver,
so
required
warning
group
add
remove
existing
volume
capability.
A
So
if
a
seaside
driver
can
support
that,
then
then
we
can.
We
can
do
it
this
way
we
can
create
a
new
empty
one
group,
and
then
we
can
add
an
existing
pvc
to
this
exiting
existing
one
group
and
in
this
case,
of
course,
the
one
group.
Actually
it
can
be
non-empty
as
well.
So
basically
we
can
just
add
existing
pvcs
to
it,
and
then
this
also
allows
you
to
remove
a
pvc
file
in
one
group
without
deleting
it
can.
A
So
yeah,
so
that's
actually
something
that
we
are
actually
talking
about.
We
want
to
support.
I
I
know
that
we
haven't
really
go
going
through
saying
how
the
controller
handled
that,
but
right
now,
because
we
are
talking
about
you-
can
one
one
pbc
actually
can
support
different
types
of
groups
right,
so
that
would
be
supported,
and
I
don't
think
we
actually
really
talked
about
the
details
of
how
to
implement
that.
But
right
now
the
least
is
supported.
A
C
A
Yeah,
for
some
other
reasons,
so
I
think
we
probably
should
also
look
at
it,
because
I
think
the
reason
we
support
that
is
that
it's
not
for
you
to
have
like
same
type
of
groups.
It's
really
because
we
were
initially
talking
about.
We
also
want
to
use
this
group
for
some
placement
reasons
right.
So
in
that
case
you
would
need
to
have
this
one
in
multiple
groups.
A
If
you
want
to
use
that
for
different
purpose,
but
then
we
it's
also
if
we
support
that
probably
also
does
not
make
sense
for
us
to
say
you
cannot
belong
to
different
one
in
google,
the
same
type
I
think
yeah.
I
think
implementation
might
be
complicated.
I
I
don't
think
we
have
really
talked
about
the
details
of
how
to
handle
that.
But
right
now
this
is
supported.
Maybe
we
can.
A
So
so,
right
now
right
now
in
this
current
cab,
we're
talking
about
you
know,
the
group
would
support
a
group
snapshot
or
consistent
group
snapshot
right,
but
we
also
talked
about.
There
is
one
I
think:
that's
one
part
of
the
the
use
cases
right
for
the
placement,
but
we
I
don't
that's
kind
of
at
the
end
of
this,
because
it's
just
getting
too
complicated
to
talk
about
everything
at
the
same
time,
so
we
separated
this
cap
now.
So
the
placement
part
is
at
the
end.
We
never.
A
We
have
never
get
to
get
to
that.
Yet
because
we're
still
talking
about
this
group
snapshot
part.
A
So
it's
yeah,
we
can
probably
I
think,
that's
something
we
can
discuss,
because
I
think
initially
we're
saying.
Okay,
you
could
belong
to
different
groups,
that's
because
we
also
want
to
have
the
sun
for
placement
purpose.
Then
that
would
be.
That
might
be
a
different
group,
but
then
it
could
be
that
that
definitely
that's
error-prone
right,
so
you
have
to
actually
make
all
those
changes
yeah.
I.
E
D
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
can
get
the
the
two
kinds
of
groups.
The
the
problem
is
that
if
you're
an
orchestration
system
sort
of
finding
out
from
the
storage
group
makes
it
really
hard
to
define
policies.
If,
if
you
had
different
types
of
groups,
I
worry
less
it
was.
It
was
more
the
again
I
I
have
a
volume
in
three
different
groups:
three
different
consistency
groups,
that's
really
rough
right,
because
then,
if
I
trigger
restore
yeah.
F
D
Can
a
volume
be
part
of
multiple
groups.
C
C
It
and
if
not,
you
know
and
there's
a
lot
of
deal
breakers
so
like.
If,
if
a
certain
thing
is
a
requirement,
then
it's
like
okay,
I
can't
implement
that.
It's
not
useful,
and
I
don't,
but
I
mean
that
my
my
deeper
fear
is
that,
like
everybody
looks
at
that,
that
way-
and
everyone
has
a
different
set
of
of
of
deal
breakers
and
it
makes
it
impossible
to
invent
something
that
would
be
useful
to
any
reasonably
large
fraction
of
the
people
who
might
be
wanting
to
implement
the
feature.
E
E
And
then,
beyond
that
you
know
it.
It'll
probably
vary
from
storage
system
to
storage
system.
A
C
A
A
Okay,
so
so
this
one
is
actually
a
little
tricky
right,
so
basically
we
I
think
we,
this
is
some
feedback.
We
got
in
one
of
the
previous
meetings
because
we
want
to
be
able
to
do
this
modification
more
efficiently.
A
So
we
talked
about
that,
even
though
in
kubernetes
api
you
well
have
to
go,
modify
one
tvc
spec
to
add
the
wording
group
name
there,
but
in
our
controller
we
are
going
to
implement
the
logic,
so
we
actually
will
have
like
a
desired
state,
a
word
and
actual
state
award,
so
we
will
have
the
we
will
actually
compare
that
and
the
controller
and
then
try
to
do
this.
Like
a.
I
don't
know
if
you
should
call
that
a
batch
operation.
A
So
this
is
a
change
that
we
made
now.
One
question
that
I'm
actually
not
quite
sure
is:
if
we
have
this
modified
warning
group
to
handle
multiples
is
still
necessary
to
have
like
a
modified
volume,
because
that
was
originally
there,
but
no,
I
think,
that's
probably
not
needed,
but
I'd
like
to
ask
you
know:
3d
vendors
who
actually
supports
this
is
that
is
it
still
necessary
to
have
a
modified
volume?
Csi
function
is
the
modified
volume
group.
If
we
support
this
one,
should
this
be
sufficient?
A
I
mean
based
on
what
we've
done
we
have
done.
This
previously
seems
to
be
sufficient,
but
I
want
to
see
if
folks
have
a
different
requirements
for
this
one.
Do
we
actually
have
to
have
to
call
both
csi
at
this
time?
Like
both?
Do
we
have
to
have
both
modify
volume
group?
A
c
is
a
function
also
a
modified
volume
c
function.
Do
we
need
to
call
them
both
in
this
case
or
just
one
modify?
One
group
is
enough.
A
A
A
And
then,
and
then,
of
course,
the
wording
group
controller
will
be
updating
the
group
status
with
whatever
pvcs
are
updated
or
removed.
They
should
have
the
updated
pvc
list
there
and
then
delete
if
delete
is
the
same
thing.
Actually,
if
we
want
to
delete
that,
especially
still
you
are
removing.
A
A
Okay,
so
that's
that
and
then
I
think
in
the
last
meeting
we
talked
about
that.
We
also
want
to
support,
create
a
warning
group
from
volume
group
snapshot,
because
initially
we
were
thinking
okay,
we
don't
want
to
support
that,
but
then
we
thought,
maybe
if
we
don't
support
that,
it's
probably
it's
not
going
to
be
useful
for
for
some
sort
of
system
at
all.
So
we
decided
to
support
that.
A
So
in
this
case
you
can
actually
just
have
this.
One
call
that
allow
you
to
create
a
one
group
from
an
existing
group
snapshot
and
then
also
the
pvcs
will
be
created
in
this
one
call
so
and
then,
of
course,.
B
Sorry
I
got
a
question:
that's
actually
related
to
the
modified
case.
Let's
say
existing
pvc,
a
user
decides
to
wants
to
add
this
pvc
into
a
volume
group
right.
This
will
trigger
the
external
progression
to
kind
of
modify
the
volume
right.
B
Right
what
if
it
fails,
how
will.
A
He
feels
and
actually
like
yeah,
so
actually,
if
it
fails,
then
then
that
actually
should
just
like
it's
like
a
partial.
It's
like
a
partial
success
right,
so
it's
a
if
you're,
I
think
you
should
still
continue,
but
that's
something
that
we
we
can
discuss
like.
Should
we
continue?
So
let
me,
let
me
add
this
one
here.
Those
are
something
that
we
should
discuss
in.
That's
the
control
logic.
A
Should
we
fail
or
continue,
but
I
think
we
should
continue
actually
in
this
case,
I
think
it's
a
so
so
since
this
is
it's
like
one
call
right,
this
is
basically
the
we
we
are
having
this
modified.
One
group
rpc
call
to
the
driver,
so
I
think
this
is
maybe
we
can
leave
it
to
the
driver
to
decide,
because
this
is
a
we.
We
send
this
request
to
driver
saying,
but
there's.
G
A
A
Part
yeah,
so
this
is
the
part
that
I'm
asking
is:
do
we
actually
need
it?
If,
if
we
actually
need
the
modified
volume,
then
of
course
we
need
to
handle
okay,
maybe
I
should
add
this
one
yeah,
it's
good
button
is
okay
right,
so
I
actually
think
it's
not
needed
so
unless,
if
someone's
saying
tell
me
that
we
really
need
that,
I
I
was
suggesting
to
remove
that.
I
was
actually
looking
at
this.
When
I
said
I
was
like,
I
probably
should
remove
this.
A
G
A
Nobody's
have
any
objections
I'm
going
to
remove
this.
I
don't
think
this
is
needed,
so
yeah.
B
A
I'm
not
really
oh
you're,
saying
that
you're
saying
that
no
we're
not
failing
we're,
not
feeling
the
volume
right,
we're
not
we're.
I'm
just
saying
it's
going
to
fail
the
this
modified.
It's
going
to
fail
this
volume
group
thing,
but
it's
not
going
to
fail
this
individual
volume.
You
can
still
use
it.
You
will
have
some
error
messages
there
right,
you
can
still
use
it.
I
don't
think
it's
a
it's
not
going
to
like
like
make
the
volume
failed.
A
You
should
still
be
able
to
use
that
if
it's
already
being
used
right
so
okay,
actually,
we
should
probably
add
that
all
right,
if
you
need
to
call.
B
A
A
No,
so
if
it's
individual
modified
volume,
then
yes,
however,
I
don't
think
the
it.
You
will
get
some
error
messages,
but
I
mean
I'm
saying
if
it's
used
by
the
part
that
part
should
still
be
that
should
still
be
usable.
I
don't
see
why
that
should
be
changed
right.
So
I
think
that
that
part
should
not
be
affected.
A
Okay,
so
also
should,
if,
if
one
fails
to
be
added,
should
not.
A
Yeah,
so
I'm
actually,
I
actually
think
this
really
should
get
rid
of
them.
What,
if
I
wouldn't
call
here,
I
really
don't
think
that's
necessary,
but
yes,
it's
like
the
controller
will
have
to
handle
that,
but
I
don't
think
we
actually
need
to
make
a
csi
call
here.
E
Can
you
show
what
the
api
objects
look
like
in
volume
groups
back
in
status.
A
A
Yeah
so
we're
talking
about
the
create
volume
from
one
group
snapshots.
This
is
actually
going
to
be
like
a
source
and
then
so
in
one
of
the
previous
meetings,
we
decided
not
to
use
the
selector
so
initially
I
have
we
have
this
selector
there.
Then
we
decided,
because
we
were
saying
this
one
once
you
use
that
it
cannot
be
mutable,
but
now
I
have
a
different
idea
because
since
we
are
doing
this
anyway,
so
basically
meaning
when
you
create
a
new
volume
group,
your
group
is
now
empty.
A
You
have
some,
you
know
pvcs
there
initially
and
then
you
are
trying
to
add
something.
So
I
think
it's
similar.
So
I
actually
now
added
this
back,
so
I
just
want
to
get
feedback
and
see
if
that
makes
sense,
because
I
think
this
is
actually
a
very
important
use
case.
If
we
don't
have
that,
I'm
pretty
sure
there
are
people
who
keep
asking
for
this
feature,
because
you
know
if
they
have
like
some
stiffer
set
or
something
they
just
want
to
be
able
to.
You
know,
put
them
in
a
group
with
a
selector.
A
So
I
added
this
back.
So
let
me
actually
go
now.
Let
me
go
to
the
api
okay,
so
this
is
the
what
in
group
class,
so
we
last
time
we
we
decided
that
we
also
want
to
have
a
other
than
a
warning
group
snapshot
flag.
We
also
want
to
have
a
consistent
group
snapshot
flat
just
to
separate
saying
those
are
different.
A
So
now
there
are
two
there
and
then
so
the
wording
group
right.
So
what
in
group
spec?
A
We
have
a
one
group
class
and
then
so
this
is
saying
that
I
added
I
just
want
to
see
if
this
makes
sense.
So
I
now
I
quite
a
immediate
source,
so
that
expect
that
this
is
only
at
me
anytime.
It
can
be
changed,
so
it
does
not
having
a
selector
does
not
affect
us
from
being
mutable.
This
is.
B
Quick
question:
please:
could
you
educate
me
why
those
williams,
not
one
group
snapshot
flags,
are
not
a
csi
capability
thing,
but
rather
defined
in
the
class.
A
A
E
E
Is
that
you
have
different
types
of
volume
groups
that
kubernetes
will
treat
differently,
and
so
we
need
some
way
to
be
able
to
surface
that
all
the
way
up
to
kubernetes
in
a
way
that
you
know
can
be
set
and
said.
Okay,
we
want
this
type
of
group,
and
ideally
each
of
these
should
be
mutually
exclusive.
A
Understanding
should
we
actually
support
multiples.
I
was
initially
thought
we
can
have
you.
It's
actually
fine
to
have
multiple,
different
capabilities
as
long
as
the
driver
can
support
it.
So,
like
this,
like
this
too,
of
course,
I
think
this
actually
should
just
be
grouped
together
I
mean,
maybe
maybe
we
should
have
like
one
another
struct
put
them
together.
I.
E
Guess
what
I'm
afraid
of
is
if
we
start
allowing
some
weird
combinations-
and
we
end
up
with,
like
you
know,
six
seven
different
modes-
that
the
user
is
going
to
end
up
having
to
like
guess
what
the
supported
set
subset
is
going
to
be.
Okay,.
A
A
B
If
this
is
purely
for
a
mod
mode,
selection
doesn't
make
more
sense
to
include
this
in
volume
grab
one
group
spec
directly.
I
I'm
sorry.
I
still
couldn't
get
my
heads
around
why
this
is
the
cross
lane.
It
needs
to
be
at.
B
A
B
Sure,
but
think
about
who
is
going
to
operate
on
this
object
right,
it's
going
to
be
the
storage
admin
or
cost
that
I
mean
I
I
assume
this
is
a
non-new
space.
A
B
B
E
I
think
there's
kind
of
two
aspects
of
it
one
is
like:
is
a
storage
system
capable
of
such
a
mode?
And
yes,
that's
interesting,
and
we
should
have
the
storage
system
surface,
that
information
for
validation
purposes.
The
second
bit
is
kubernetes
being
aware
of
what
is
the
intention
of
the
user?
Why
is
the
user
creating
this
volume
group?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
you
know,
volume
snapshot
group?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
consistency
group?
Is
it
going
to
be?
E
You
know
some
other
type
of
group
like
a
placement
group
and
if
so,
kubernetes
itself
will
treat
that
differently
right
volume.
Placement
groups
could
involve
the
scheduler
doing
something
special,
for
example,.
B
B
B
E
Fine,
we
could
have
like
a
string
type
mode
or
something
like
that,
but
I
think
the
only
thing
we
need
to
worry
about
here
is
like
backwards
compatibility.
If
we
add
in
a
new
mode
in
the
future,
I
think
it
used
to
be
that
we
used
enums
in
the
past
and
then
the
problem
was,
if
you
introduce
a
new
one,
is
it
can
we
do
so
in
a
backwards
compatible
way
or
not?
E
And
so
then
I
think
we
went
towards
booleans
as
like.
Oh,
you
can
always
test
for
a
boolean.
Even
if
you
add
new
booleans
in
the
future,
you
know
it
won't
it
won't
make
any
of
these
out
of
date
sounds
good
thanks.
A
So
we
can
just
say,
like
we
just
have
like
one
type
right,
a
group
type
or
something,
and
then
it
can
be
one
of
those
we
can.
A
Okay,
so,
and
then
so
here,
okay,
we're
talking
about
this
sort,
init
source.
So
basically,
when
you
initialize
the
wording
group
what
should
be
in
this
group?
So
if
this
is
now,
then
it's
an
empty
group.
A
Otherwise
you
have
to
specify
one
of
this
either
it's
a
source,
one
group
snapshot
name,
so
we
that's.
That
means
you
take
a
created
one
group
from
this
group
snapshot
or
we
have
the
selector.
That
means
you
are
we're
going
to
get
all
the
existing
pvcs
and
add
them
to
the
one
group.
A
A
And
okay,
so
group
status
group
status
will
have
so
we'll
have
a
sorry.
E
E
That
says
you
know
anything
that
any
pvc
that
has
such
and
such
label
put
it
into
this
volume
group
right
and
to
get
around
the
weirdness
of
you
know,
mutation,
you're
saying
this
will
only
be
evaluated
once
at
creation
time
and
hence
the
name
and
its
source.
E
If
you
select
using
this
mechanism,
does
that
remain
empty,
which
I'm
sorry,
which
one
I
I
I
thought
there
was
a
way
on
on
the
pvc
to
opt
into
a
volume
group
like
a
field
in
the
pvc
that
says
I
will.
I
want.
A
Right
right,
that's
modified
right.
You
can
also
that's
the
mutation
part
right,
so
we're
talking
about
so
so
it
does
not
matter
how
so,
okay,
so
like.
Let's
just
look
at
this,
this
part
right,
so
let's
say
you
you:
either
you
can
create
an
empty
volume
group
right,
don't
have
anything!
A
A
Basically
one
of
this
ways
right.
So
basically
you
populate
you
have
one
group
with
something:
either
you
create
a
basic
either
your
creative
or
from
the
group
snapshot
that
that
means
you
actually
create
this
one
group
and
also
kind
of
in
the
same
time
you
create
new
volumes
added
to
the
group
in
one
step
right.
So
that's
your
that's
one,
unique
source
that
we
said
last
time.
We
said
we
want
to
support
this
right
in
that
case.
After
that,
you
can
still.
A
You
can
still
modify
the
pvc
spec
and
add
new.
Add
new
volumes
to
it
right,
we
shouldn't
be
disabled.
E
Right
so
so
I
think
that's
fine.
My
question
is
more
around.
Let's
say
in
your
yeah
in
your
label.
You
say
you
know
anything
that
has
a
label
foo
and
you
have
volume
a
b
and
c
that
have
the
label
foo.
F
E
You
create
this
new
volume
group
volume
group
status
says:
okay.
Now
a
b
and
c
are
part
of
part
of
this
volume
group
a
b
and
c
also
have
a
volume
group
name
in
the
spec.
I
presume
is
that
accurate.
E
I
mean
it's
just
it's
a
it's
a
ux
thing
right,
we're
saying
that
there
is
a
field
in
the
spec
in
the
pvc
that
says
I.
This
is
the
intended
volume
group
that
it
should
or
set
of
volume
groups
it
should
belong
to,
but
it
is
possible
that
it
can
be
empty
and
you
can
still
pop.
You
know-
belong
to
a
volume
group
unbeknownst
to
that
pvc
object,
but.
A
That's
like
the
controller
you're
you're,
so
basically
it's
like
you're
requesting
it
through
a
yeah.
I
see
what
you're
saying.
So
this
is
ways
you
are
you're
requesting
through
a
volume
group
spec
right,
then
our
controller
will
making
that
change
on
behalf
of
the
user.
I
think
that
would
be
something
like
that.
A
A
B
B
B
E
A
E
E
So
if
you
choose
to
specify
via
a
knit
source
what
the
volume
group
makeup
should
be,
the
pvcs
themselves
are
going
to
have
an
empty
volume
volume
group
name
and
that
just
is
a
confusing
ui
right.
As
a
user,
I
can
have
a
pvc
that
can
be
part
of
a
group
that
you
know,
there's
a
and
has
an
empty
volume
group
name.
B
E
A
Yeah,
I
know,
but
here
we
are
since
we're
calling
this
init
sorcerer,
so
okay,
so
I
was
so
now.
Does
it
make
sense
so
I
was
in
so
I
was
thinking
that
the
controller
will
go
ahead
in
this
case.
Controller
will
actually
go
ahead
and
add
that
add
that
volume
group
name
inspect,
does
that
make
sense
or
is
that
wrong?
E
A
E
A
E
What
we
can
do
is,
you
know,
keep
volume,
group,
spec,
simple
and
say
you
know.
The
only
way
that
you
add
to
a
volume
group
is
through
having
a
pvc
object.
That
has
a
volume
group
list
that
includes
the
volume
group
and
to
reduce
the
overhead
of
like
manually
having
to
go
and
update
a
ton
of
different
groups.
E
And
then
it
would
go
in
and
like
either
create
or
update
the
the
correct
fields
and
all
the
selected
group,
and
that
way
you
kind
of
create
like
clean
abstraction
lines
at
a
very
basic
level.
It's
a
very
manual
process,
and
if
you
want
to
automate
it,
you
can
have
a
second
level
controller
that
does
automation.
On
top
of
it,.
A
Okay,
so
there
will
be
like
an
another
okay.
So
let's
be
another,
have
another
crd,
maybe
just
two
just
right.
F
A
B
E
A
Okay,
yeah,
okay.
I
think
that
yeah,
I
think,
that's
for
the
better
yeah,
okay,
so
move
on
to
group
status.
A
A
Like
two
objects,
you
have
to
bind
or
something
because
I
was
thinking
you
know
trying
to
simplify
things
having
one
rather
than
two
and
also
if
we
really
want
to
like
import
some
existing
group.
I
think
we
can
actually
do
that
just
by
importing
one
pvc
at
a
time.
I
would
think
that's
what
I'm
thinking
so
simplify
things.
A
So
that's
the
that's
why
so,
basically,
in
this
volume
group,
we
will
have
this
one
group
id
which
is
returned
by
the
csi
driver.
If
some
csi
driver
or
some
system
does
not
really
have
this
group
concept
actually
well,
they
can
take
a
good
snapshot,
but
they
don't
really
have
this
a
group
ahead
of
time.
Basically,
then,
in
that
case,
they
can
just
choose
to
return.
The
level
group
name
that
we
provided
to
the
driver.
B
In
the
case
of
creating
from
volume
group
snapshot,
will
the
pvc
list
be
populated.
A
A
B
A
A
B
Sure,
but
the
snapshots
only
has
the
snapshot
content
that
has
snapshots.
It
doesn't
contain
that
looking
forward
to
create
pvc
information
right,
for
example,
the
names
of
the
pvcs
you're
going
to
use
the
original
names
of
the
pvcs.
A
So
so
those
are
the
things
that
we
can.
Actually
we
can.
Actually,
I
don't
think
that
actually
is.
I
don't
think
that
yeah,
we
probably.
A
So
we
either
we
can
just
create
a
we.
We
can
just
generate
them,
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
that
is
important
for
user
to
provide
those
names
yeah,
if
it's
important
for
user
to
provide
names,
then
I
don't
think
yeah,
that's
right!
We
don't,
I
don't
think
we
have,
but
we
should
actually
have
that
information.
E
E
B
Seems
a
little
bit,
you
know
weird
to
me
in
the
sense
it
combines
both
try
to
combine
both
functionality.
However,.
A
We're
not
really
trying
to
combine,
but
that's
basic,
it's
basically
so
okay,
so
there
are
actually
two
ways
for
for
restore
to
work
right.
So
one
way
is
why
it's
straightforward.
Initially,
that
was
the
the
way
that
we
we
proposed,
just
only
you
can
only
risk
one
at
a
time
so,
okay,
so
let's
actually
go
to
here,
restore
we
haven't
even
looked
at
snapshot
yet,
okay,
so
the
restore
initially
we
talked
about
like
two
ways,
but
we
only
see
for
one
the
first
one,
which
is
a
simple
one.
A
You
create
an
empty
empty
one
group,
and
then
you
create
a
new
volume
from
a
snapshot
one
by
one,
adding
to
the
boring
group
that
was
initially
the
thing
was
saying:
we
want
to
support
that
one.
So
definitely
that
definitely
this
was
to
be
supported,
but
then
I
think
during
the
previous
review.
There
are
some
concerns,
saying:
okay,
if
you're
honest
with
us,
then
some
it's
not
going
to
be
useful
for
some
sort
of
system
at
all.
So
then
we
talked
about
just
to
you
know.
We
want
to
support
this
one.
A
That's
why
we're
talking
about
this?
You
just
do
this
everything
in
one
step,
so
basically
we
need
to
be
able
to
compose
that.
So
I
think
I
I
can
maybe
write
down
more
details
on
how
this
one
is
done,
and
so
the
group
so
group
snapshot
should
have
all
the
information
so
that,
when
you
are
creating
a
so
between
the
one
group
and
the
the
one
group
snapshot
between
the
two,
you
should
actually
be
able
to
get
back
to
where
you
want
to
be
at
restore
time.
A
Yeah,
what
a
group
snapshot
is
a
snapshot
right,
so
it's
actually
so,
okay,
so,
okay,
so
that
sent
you
we
have
to
have
not
even
get
to
that
part.
Yet
so
we
talked
about
the
warning
group
right
and
then
we
have
to
talk
about
group
snapshot.
Group
snapshot
is
like
this
group
snapshot.
You
you
have
to.
You
must
specify
source.
A
When
you
take
a
group
snapshot,
you
must
specify
source
a
source
is
a
one
group
right
so
because
we
that's
we
because
we
want
to
be
able
to
take
a
snapshot
of
multiple
volumes
in
one
shot
right
to
support
consistent
volume
groups
that
could
do
support
consistent
group
snapshot.
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
Yeah,
that's
actually
that's
another
capability
we
are
trying
to
add,
which
is
to
support
individual
restore
so
in
in
some
use
cases-
and
there
are
some
review
comments
saying:
oh
maybe
some
people
can
only
support.
Can
I
have
to
do
that,
so
we
actually.
A
So
that's
why
it's
a
capability,
so
we
have
that
as
a
capability
you
you
either
you
can
actually
restore
one.
No.
B
A
D
A
We
actually
talked
about
how
to
create
the
group
snapshot.
You
actually
are
like
there
are
when
you
create
snapchat.
There
are
like
several.
There
are
two
different
cases.
When
you
create
a
group
snapshot,
it
depends
on
the
driver
depending
on
the
search
system.
A
So
some,
if
you
want
to
some
three
systems,
of
course
they
can
just.
They
can
create
a
group
snapshot
on
this
search
system
and
then
in
this
case,
actually
you
would
want
to
leave
it
to
the
cs.
Driver
cc,
drivers
create
volume,
group
snapshot,
snap
volume
group
snapshot
function
to
handle
the
individual
or
snapshot
creation,
but
for
others
you
actually
have
to
do
them
individually.
A
A
C
A
A
The
object-
and
it's
just
stuck
we'll
probably
need
to
add,
like
the
the
admissions
control
to
prevent
that
so.
C
Well,
you,
you
could
do
it
with
the
finalizer.
It's
just
going
to
be
weird,
because
you'll
you'll
ask
the
system.
A
A
A
Sure
yeah,
it's
that
that's
the
design
current
design.
If
you
think
that's
not
the
right
thing
we
can
talk
about,
I
think
that
should
be
the
design,
because
group
snapshot
is
supposed
to
be
like
one
thing:
it's
different
from
wording
right.
It
makes
sense
for
you
to
delete
individual
ones,
but
for
snapshot
is
different
right.
You
want
to
support
a
consistent,
consistent
group
snapshot.
It
doesn't
make
sense
you
deliver
and
then
you
cannot
really
use
it
anymore,
but
the
reason
we
keep
the
individual
one
is
you
know.
A
B
B
Sure
then,
in
the
restoration
case,
if
that's
the
case
right,
if
I
select
volume
group
snapshot,
which
happens
to
consist
one
of
my
already
removed
volume,
then
I,
as
a
user,
will
see
this
volume
all
of
a
sudden
pop
it
up
right.
A
B
A
Because,
then,
you
have
a
different
group
right,
you're,
creating
a
new
group,
we're
not
rewriting
the
original
one.
Yes,
that
is
possible.
Oh
you're,
saying
you're
modified
group.
Yes,
yes,
so
the
the
results
of
the
the
snapshot,
of
course,
depending
on
your
your
your
volume
group,
like
how
many
volumes
are
there
right
at
the
time?
A
So
hey
sorry!
I
think
this
is
a
great
discussion,
but
I
think
we
are
running
out
of
time.
I
think
it's.
A
A
That's,
not
necessarily
the
same
as
how
it
started
with
definitely
that's
the
case,
but
you
have
the
pvc
list
right
in
that
group
right
as
you
know,
hopefully
you
know
because
that's
in
the
status
okay,
so
so
I
think
we
will
need
to
have
another
meeting
to
continue
one
minute
to
go
thanks
for
this.
So
tom,
do
you
want
to
give
a
quick
update
of
the
the
white,
the
white
paper.
A
A
I
think
we're
not
not
yet
because
I
think
the
I
was
just.
I
was
asking
you
because
the
I
think
that
section
definitely
some
work,
because
that
section
right
now
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
understand.
I
mean
there
are
many.
We
have
many
use
cases,
but
it's
a
but
as
part
of
the
white
paper.
I
think
that
definitely
some
of
that's
why
I
was
asking
you
yeah.
Certainly.
F
Did
have
a
high
level
question
white
paper
as
well
in
some
sections,
we're
kind
of
proposing
new
kubernetes
apis
right,
I'm
thinking
cbt.
Do
we
want
to
separate
out
the
proposals
from
the
the
actual
kind
of.
A
B
B
A
I
know
yeah
it's
already
very
long,
it's
very
yeah.
We
definitely
need
to
take
a
look
and
trying
to
trim
it,
but
I
mean
so.
I
was
just
right
now.
I'm
looking
at
different
sections
and
see
which
section
seems
like
need
some
real
work.
So
I
think
the
quiet
section
definitely
needs
some
rework
so
yeah.
Maybe
we
could
yeah
we
maybe
we
could.
You
could
give
an
update
next
time.
A
Thank
you,
oh
so
I
see
that
steven
nelly's
here
I
so
that
section.
I
wonder
if
you
can
take
a
look,
because
that
one,
the
section
that
you
you
did
for
the
use
cases-
that's
actually
very,
very
good,
but
it
has
a
lot
of
like
bullets
points
I'm
going.
A
Oh
yeah,
yes,
can
you
take
a
look
and
take
a
look
of
the
yeah,
so
I
assigned
that
to
oh
do
that.
I
think
I
should
okay,
let
me
assign
a
section
chip,
because
the
rest
of
the
paper
will
be
like
the
paragraphs
right.
So
can
you
no
problem.
A
A
Great
okay,
thank
you,
yeah
all
right.
I
think
we
yeah
over
time
all
right
thanks
everyone.
We
will
meet
again
in
two
weeks.