On 08/12/2013 02:56 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:55 AM, John Griffith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> There have been a couple of block storage related patches in Nova >> lately and I wanted to get some discussion going and also maybe >> increase some awareness on some efforts that were discussed at the >> last summit. To catch up a bit here's the etherpad from the summit >> session [1]. >> >> First off, there was a patch to move Nova's LVM code in to OSLO (here >> [2]). This one is probably my fault for not having enough awareness >> out there regarding our plans/goals with brick. I'd like to hear from >> folks if the brick approach is not sufficient or if there's some other >> reason that it's not desirable (hopefully it's just that folks didn't >> know about it). >> >> For reference/review the latest version of the brick/local_dev/lvm >> code is here: [4]. >> >> One question we haven't answered on this yet is where this code should >> ultimately live. Should it be in OSLO, or should it be a separate >> library that's part of Cinder and can be imported by other projects. >> I'm mixed on this for a number of reasons but I think either approach >> is fine. >> >> The next item around this topic that came up was a patch to add >> support for using RBD for local volumes in Nova (here [3]). You'll >> notice a number of folks mentioned brick on this, and I think that's >> the correct answer. At the same time while I think that's the right >> answer long term I also would hate to see this feature NOT go in to H >> just because folks weren't aware of what was going on in Brick. It's >> a bit late in the cycle so my thought on this is that I'd like to see >> this resubmitted using the brick/common approach. If that can't be >> done between now and the feature freeze for H3 I'd rather see the >> patch go in as is than have the feature not be present at all for >> another release. We can then address this when we get a better story >> in place for brick. > > It seems like the key question is whether or not the nova code is going > to be replaced by brick by Havana. If not, then this should go in as-is.
+1. I was still expecting that it was. If not, I'm happy to go with this. What's the status on this work? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/refactor-iscsi-fc-brick -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
