On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 06:53:36PM +0200, Constantinos Venetsanopoulos wrote: > Hi, > > you are definitely right that those two are very similar and I used > to have the same problem when implementing RBD support. > > However, probably RBD is more accurate, because it refers to the > Rados Block Device which is the actual driver you use to talk with > the storage backend; that's what the instance sees. Whereas > RADOS is the external storage cluster itself (the Object Store).
Possibly yes. But in the end, an instance's data is backed by Rados, not by RBD, as RBD is just a way to access Rados. The point is, these are all small differences, what I care more is code readability/clarity. > QEMU also refers to RADOS in the same way (as `rbd'). See here: > http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/qemu-rbd/ > > In any way, I don't have a strong opinion and think that indeed it > would simplify things a lot. > > That means that we would also refer to it with `-t rados' ? Not necessarily, although that is also an option… thanks, iustin > On 03/12/2013 06:35 PM, Iustin Pop wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >It's nigh on impossible to search (meaningfully) for "rbd", as the very > >similar naming to "drbd" makes it hard (grep -w, yes, but still). And > >it also makes it harder to read code, as you always have to squint and > >make sure there are 3 or 4 letters :) > > > >What about renaming rbd to rados? In the Haskell code I've already used > >this name, and it makes for much more readable code (IMHO). > > > >iustin >
