On 23/12/13 22:46 +0800, Zhi Yan Liu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:On 23/12/13 09:00 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:On 12/23/2013 08:48 AM, Mark Washenberger wrote:On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 12/23/2013 05:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Flavio Percoco wrote: On 21/12/13 00:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: Cinder is for block storage. Images are just a bunch of blocks, and all the store drivers do is take a chunked stream of input blocks and store them to disk/swift/s3/rbd/toaster and stream those blocks back out again. So, perhaps the most appropriate place for this is in Cinder-land. This is an interesting suggestion. I wouldn't mind putting it there, although I still prefer it to be under glance for historical reasons and because Glance team knows that code. How would it work if this lib falls under Block Storage program? Should the glance team be added as core contributors of this project? or Just some of them interested in contributing / reviewing those patches? Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like John and Mark to weigh in too. Programs are a team of people on a specific mission. If the stores code is maintained by a completely separate group (glance devs), then it doesn't belong in the Block Storage program... unless the Cinder devs intend to adopt it over the long run (and therefore the contributors of the Block Storage program form a happy family rather than two separate groups). Understood. The reason I offered this up as a suggestion is that currently Cinder uses the Glance REST API to store and retrieve volume snapshots, and it would be more efficient to just give Cinder the ability to directly retrieve the blocks from one of the underlying store drivers (same goes for Nova's use of Glance). ...and, since the glance.store drivers are dealing with blocks, I thought it made more sense in Cinder. True, Cinder and Nova should be talking more directly to the underlying stores--however their direct interface should probably be through glanceclient. (Glanceclient could evolve to use the glance.store code I imagine.)Hmm, that is a very interesting suggestion. glanceclient containing the store drivers. I like it. Will be a bit weird, though, having the glanceclient call the Glance API server to get the storage location details, which then calls the glanceclient code to store/retrieve the blocks :)Exactly. This is part of the original idea. Allow Glance, nova, glanceclient and cinder to interact with the store code.Actually I consider this Glance store stuff can be packaged to a dedicated common lib belongs to Glance, maybe we can put it into glanceclient if we don't like create a new sub-lib, IMO it worked just like current Cinder's brick lib IMO, in sort term.
I don't like the idea of having it in the client. I'd prefer the client to just consume it. IMHO, glance.store sounds like the way to go here.
In long term we can move those stuff all to oslo when they stable enough (if we can see that day ;) ) and don't organize them by project's POV but storage type: oslo.blockstore (or other name) for block storage backend handling, and oslo.objectstore for object storage, and upper layer project just delegate all real storage device operation requests to those lib, like mount/attach, unmoun/detach, read/write..
mhh, not sure. That sounds like way more of what the lib should do. IMHO, this lib shouldn't take care of any admin operation, it should be just about getting / putting data into those stores. -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpxQokq35Y0G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
