On 12/18/2013 09:07 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote: > On 12/18/2013 06:27 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: >> >> On Dec 18, 2013 7:09 AM, "Mike Scherbakov" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Do I miss anything in the above? >> >> No. >> >> > Do we plan to have it documented anywhere so it is easy to >> understand for the user, who might be not very well experienced with >> all cinder, lvm, ephemeral, ceph, swift, rbd and other terms? >> >> It is documented to some extent in settings descriptions and a bit >> more in the Reference Architecture. Maybe it's worth adding more >> details to the Storage Architecture section? Should there be a link to >> that section somewhere in the UI? >> > I suggest to simplify the terminology, skip all > Ceph/Swift/Cinder/Volume/Image/Glance terms and use Ephemeral storage / > Block storage / Object storage / File-level storage instead. > By the way, Openstack ops docs uses these terms > http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-ops/content/storage_decision.html > That would make us closer to community :-)
No, type of underlying technology matters there. The terms are just OpenStack-born abstractions which will not move user any closer to understanding of real topology. >> >> > What does mean checkbox "Cinder LVM over iSCSI for volumes" - what >> are the use cases for it? >> >> It is the default Cinder option from your list. The primary use case >> is where the cloud administrator doesn't need additional redundancy >> provided by Ceph and needs to maximize data density for volumes. >> >> > Do we need cinder role applied to any servers if we use Ceph everywhere? >> >> No. >> >> > Will RadosGW conflict with Swift in HA mode? >> >> Yes. This is reflected in the RadosGW setting description. >> >> > Did we create bugs about unneeded LVMs for Glance, /var/lib/nova if >> we use Ceph? Or we still need LVMs? >> >> Our discussionon this yesterday was a bit inconclusive. I'm in favor >> of keeping the LVMs in 4.0 do as not to destabilize the release, and >> removing them in 4.1. If there are no objections I will create bugs >> targeted for 4.1. >> >> > Are there any other combinations which may lead to side effects? Can >> we have all of them verified? >> >> No, I don't think so. >> >> > How many of the things above are covered by system tests, and how >> many still need to be covered? >> > Do we have multiple backend support in Cinder? >> >> No. Andrew started this work but it was held back by the splinters bug. >> >> > The whole UX with only checkboxes doesn't look like ideal solution >> to me. What do you think folks, should we file a blueprint and >> implement better UX for it in future versions? >> >> TBH I would have a single checkbox in the wizard that would enable all >> Ceph options. Not sure what we can do about the checkboxes in the >> settings tab though. >> > In UI we can let the customer to choose which backend (LVM, default / > Ceph / Swift, if applicable / anything-new-goes-here ) to use for which > storage type ( Ephemeral / Block / Object / File-level ), as a drop-down > lists. >> >> -Dmitry >> >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Bogdan Dobrelya, > Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc. > +38 (066) 051 07 53 > Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com > Irc #bogdando > 38, Lenina ave. > Kharkov, Ukraine > www.mirantis.com > www.mirantis.ru > [email protected] > > > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
