On 09/20/2016 08:09 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
Does this compare to ViPR?

I am not a ViPR expert, you would have to poke John Mark Walker for that :)

My assumption is that they might want to use these modules (from tendryl down to the ceph/gluster bits) to add support for ceph and gluster.



On September 20, 2016 9:52:54 AM PDT, Ric Wheeler <rwhee...@redhat.com> wrote:

    On 09/20/2016 10:23 AM, Gerard Braad wrote:

        Hi Mrugesh, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Mrugesh Karnik
        <mkar...@redhat.com> wrote:

            I'd like to introduce the Tendrl project. Tendrl aims to build a
management interface for Ceph. We've pushed some documentation to the
        On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Mrugesh Karnik <mkar...@redhat.com>

            I'd like to introduce the Tendrl project. Tendrl aims to build a
management interface for Gluster. We've pushed some documentation to
        It might help to introduce Tendrl as the "Universal Storage Manager'"
        with a possibility to either manage Ceph and/or Gluster. I understand
        you want specific feedback, but a clear definition of the tool would
        be helpful.

    (Apologies for reposting my response - gmail injected html into what I 
    was a text reply and it bounced from ceph-devel.)

    Hi Gerard,

    I see the goal differently.

    It is better to think of tendryl as one component of a whole management
    application stack. At the bottom, we will have ceph specific components
    (ceph-mgr) and gluster specific components (glusterd), as well as other 
    storage/file system components like libstoragemgt and so on.

    Tendryl is the next layer up from that, but it itself is meant to be 
consumed by
    presentation layers. For a stand alone thing that we hope to use at Red Hat,
    there will be a universal storage manager stack with everything I mentioned
    above in it, as
    well as the GUI code.

    Other projects will hopefully find this useful enough and plug some or all 
    the components into other management stacks.

      From my point of view, the job is to try to provide as much as possible
    re-usable components that will be generically interesting to a wide variety 
    applications. It is definitely not about trying to make all storage stacks 
    the same and force artificial new names/concepts/etc on the users. Of 
    any one application will tend to have a similar "skin" for UX elements to 
    and make it consistent for users.

    If we do it right, people passionate about Ceph but who don't care about 
    will be able to be avoid getting tied up in something out of their interest.
    Same going the other way around for Gluster developers who don't care or 
    about Ceph. Over time, this might extend to other storage types like Samba 
    NFS Ganesha clusters,



Gluster-devel mailing list

Reply via email to