Add Google Cloud NetApp Volumes support #4583

okrause · 2025-08-29T12:46:35Z

Hello,

here is a PR to add support for Google Cloud NetApp Volume, which provides NFS/SMB shared file-system.

It has two new modules:

netapp-storage-pool: A capacity container to host volumes
netapp-volume: Volumes are file-systems

The PR contains code and documentation for the two new modules, an example blueprint and updates to the blueprint readme and network_storage.md.

I am unsure if this needs to be a community contribution or a core one. GCNV is a Google first party service and I am part of the GCNV product team. So I consider it "core" contribution, but in the end it depends on how the CT team defines core vs community. Please advise.

I also need guidance if I need to add tests.

Looking forward to the review process.

okrause · 2025-09-17T11:15:22Z

Hello, I am back from vacation. Pushed an update to fix an merge conflict caused my changes in the develop branch.

okrause · 2025-09-25T13:39:10Z

Question: We did a few changes in the service recently which caused issues in older google provider versions. We recommend users to use 7.4.0+ now. CT seems to have some implicit constraints which do not allow providers >=7. Is this a known issue? When can I use a 7.x based provider?

bytetwin

IMO, netapp-storage-pool as well as netapp-volume should be under community/modules instead of modules. Reason being this module is not directly supported by the toolkit team.

I also think there should be an integration test for the blueprint if we are planning to have netapp as a mainstream storage option in toolkit

bytetwin · 2025-10-01T07:51:32Z

examples/README.md


 [gke-g4]: ../examples/gke-g4

+### [netapp-volumes.yaml] ![core-badge]


community badge instead of core

examples/README.md

bytetwin · 2025-10-01T08:41:48Z

modules/file-system/netapp-volume/scripts/mount.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+# Copyright 2023 Google LLC


modules/file-system/netapp-volume/scripts/mount.yaml

bytetwin · 2025-10-01T08:51:45Z

modules/file-system/netapp-volume/scripts/mount.yaml

Where is this file used ?

This is unclear to me. But Filestore is shipping it as well, so I decided to add a customized version for Netapp Volumes as well. It is unclear to me how exactly it is used in FileStore, but I thought there will be a reason. I assume is is part of the metadata which is used when VMs are deployed. The name says something about ansible. I assume it is part of the magic which makes CT mount the filesystems in the VMs.

bytetwin · 2025-10-01T08:58:25Z

modules/file-system/netapp-volume/versions.tf

+    }
+  }
+  provider_meta "google" {
+    module_name = "blueprints/terraform/hpc-toolkit:netapp-volume/v1.60.0"


Can you please elaborate what this is and how the version numbers come to be? I see I commented this block out in netapp-storage-pool entirely.
I simply try to adhere to the standards in CT, but this is a part of which I don't understand the purpose and how to use it.

see response in the other comment

bytetwin · 2025-10-01T08:58:30Z

modules/file-system/netapp-volume/versions.tf

+    module_name = "blueprints/terraform/hpc-toolkit:netapp-volume/v1.60.0"
+  }
+  provider_meta "google-beta" {
+    module_name = "blueprints/terraform/hpc-toolkit:netapp-volume/v1.60.0"


This comes from the current version of the toolkit in main. This helps us understand the versions of the modules that are currently used in the wild and prioritize support.

okrause · 2025-10-01T12:34:13Z

I also think there should be an integration test for the blueprint if we are planning to have netapp as a mainstream storage option in toolkit

Can you please share some info on integration test to get me started? I need to understand how they are done and how they work.

okrause · 2025-10-01T12:45:08Z

IMO, netapp-storage-pool as well as netapp-volume should be under community/modules instead of modules. Reason being this module is not directly supported by the toolkit team.

@bytetwin I understand that reasoning. But I want to understand the role of Filestore here. Is Filestore maintained by the toolkit team? If yes, why not pick up NetApp Volumes as well, since it is a more capable and feature rich native Google NFS and SMB file service?

cboneti · 2025-10-01T16:55:07Z

Hi @okrause, please push the small changes first (version differences), year for the header and let's run the basic tests here. After that, I can guide you on how to write integration tests. We are still debating if this module should be in core or in community.

okrause · 2025-10-02T08:46:58Z

Hi @okrause, please push the small changes first (version differences), year for the header and let's run the basic tests here. After that, I can guide you on how to write integration tests. We are still debating if this module should be in core or in community.

Thank you for the feedback. I did push some changes and looking forward to resolve open questions with you. On my list of item to clarify are:

core or community
integration tests
What is provider_meta information for? How do I know which version number to use?
I want to use google>=7.4.0, but currently getting constraint conflicts. How to resolve.

Thank you @cboneti and @bytetwin for supporting this PR review.

cboneti · 2025-10-02T22:02:09Z

@okrause
We are discussing internally the core vs community, when Hanu is back on Monday, we will converge to a final decision.

What is provider_meta information for? How do I know which version number to use?
I believe I answered that in the commands. You should use the current version of main.

I want to use google>=7.4.0, but currently getting constraint conflicts. How to resolve.
I am not sure, I haven't tried. I believe the toolkit team might have the answer for that. In the past, I saw this type of problems when the provider made breaking changes that would require significant rework within the toolkit code. This might be the case here but the team will know better (another topic to be discussed on Monday).

As for regression tests, if this module goes to core, then it will be absolutely required.
Regression tests are defined in tools/cloud-build/daily-tests, PTAL. Unless things changed dramatically there, the documentation is probably not complete. It will also be very hard for you to try things out without the general infrastructure so realistically, it might be a better exercise for us to think of the specific post-deploy tests we should run... like in tools/cloud-build/daily-tests/ansible_playbooks/test-validation (see in tools/cloud-build/daily-tests/builds/lustre-slurm.yaml + tools/cloud-build/daily-tests/tests/lustre-slurm.yml an example of how these are put together through ansible).

okrause requested review from samskillman and a team as code owners August 29, 2025 12:46

okrause force-pushed the netapp-volume branch from 765bdbf to 1abb821 Compare August 29, 2025 14:30

okrause added 4 commits September 17, 2025 13:07

add netapp-storage-pool module

f2477f7

add netapp-volume module

d65a4ae

adds example blueprint documentation and doc updates

3738068

change google provider version dependency

aca94e9

okrause force-pushed the netapp-volume branch from 1abb821 to aca94e9 Compare September 17, 2025 11:13

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into netapp-volume

46a2d21

bytetwin reviewed Oct 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

samskillman mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2025

Enable hpc tollkit for google cloud netapp volume #4130

Closed

Review process changes GoogleCloudPlatform#1

457306f

cboneti added release-key-new-features Added to release notes under the "Key New Features" heading. release-new-modules Added to release notes under the "New Modules" heading. labels Oct 2, 2025

cboneti assigned okrause Oct 2, 2025


		[gke-g4]: ../examples/gke-g4

		### [netapp-volumes.yaml] ![core-badge]

Add Google Cloud NetApp Volumes support #4583

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add Google Cloud NetApp Volumes support #4583

Uh oh!

Conversation

okrause commented Aug 29, 2025

Uh oh!

okrause commented Sep 17, 2025

Uh oh!

okrause commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

bytetwin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

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!

okrause commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

okrause commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

cboneti commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

okrause commented Oct 2, 2025

Uh oh!

cboneti commented Oct 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cboneti commented Oct 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading