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

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 ?

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

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

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

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

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

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

Gupta, Surya and others added 16 commits September 28, 2026 11:48

[CSTACKEX-279] Add Capacity IOPS for Storage Pool

1785a1f

[CSTACKEX-279] QoS for Disk and Compute Offering

8ebf05a

[CSTACKEX-279] Added QoS Client

a0613e4

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix CustomIOPS bug

c9eba43

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix Volume resize bug

0675c52

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix Volume resize bug

0c3eacc

[CSTACKEX-279] Volume Resize QoS

0a6b2b5

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

3a8052d

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

3e1039e

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

2dfff8c

[CSTACKEX-279] Refactoring

8d864bc

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

dbc46e0

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

1489ad8

[CSTACKEX-279] Fix build issues

5d2332f

[CSTACKEX-279] UI Fixes

c6b8bd9

[CSTACKEX-279] Volume Resize Fix for IOPS and Size

cfdc801

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

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

[CSTACKEX-279] Resolved Review Comments

d3ba527

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!

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!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 28, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

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