On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Guido Trotter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Guido, [...] > The benefit with inside gluster is that it would not be opaque, but > fully supported and integrated. > I personally am in favor of that implementation, rather than an > external one. Right now we provide the external interface, but no > module for it. Putting one means we would need to add infrastructure > for testing/qaing it and such, while having it internal we can > leverage the normal infrastructure. Having it internal we can also > provide a monitoring agent for it (see the monitoring agent design) > and more visibility into what's going on. > Hmmm..., it looks like we will not do extra stuffs if we realize Gluster inside Ganeti. It really good for me. I have give the implementation plan for external storage. And i will give the implementation plan for inside Ganeti. However, i cannot find the documents about how to realize back-end storage inside Ganeti. Would you please give me some links you know? For external storage, the link is here http://docs.ganeti.org/ganeti/master/html/design-shared-storage.html#introduction-of-the-external-storage-interface > > Not a problem at all. It can be supported initially just for kvm, and > we can provide the Xen support via the node, or later. > I wouldn't focus on a suboptimal support just so it can be used by all > machine types, when the only sensible production use case is the > optimal one, which we wouldn't provide. > Yeah, i think so. > > Well, if it is then for example how can qemu configure it via the > userspace, rather than via the filesystem of the node? > And we want it via the library, as lance said. :) > Actually, i cannot understand you clearly. Would you please explain for me in details. Thanks very much ;-) -- Thanks Harry Wei
