On 05/04, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 3:15 AM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
> > But just to be clear, Nova will have to initialize the connection with
> > the re-imagined volume and attach it again to the node, as in all cases
> > (except when defaulting to downloading the image and dd-ing it to the
> > volume) the result will be a new volume in the backend.
> Yeah I think I pointed this out earlier in this thread on what I thought the
> steps would be on the nova side with respect to creating a new empty
> attachment to keep the volume 'reserved' while we delete the old attachment,
> re-image the volume, and then update the volume attachment for the new
> connection. I think that would be similar to how shelve and unshelve works
> in nova.
> Would this really require a swap volume call from Cinder? I'd hope not since
> swap volume in itself is a pretty gross operation on the nova side.
> --
> Thanks,
> Matt

Hi Matt,

Yes, it will require a volume swap, with the worst case scenario
exception where we dd the image into the volume.

In the same way that anyone would expect a re-imaging preserving the
volume id, one would also expect it to behave like creating a new volume
from the same image: be as fast and take up as much space on the

And to do so we have to use existing optimized mechanisms that will only
work when creating a new volume.

The alternative would be to have the worst case scenario as the default
(attach and dd the image) and make *ALL* Cinder drivers implement the
optimized mechanism where they can efficiently re-imagine a volume.  I
can't talk for the Cinder team, but I for one would oppose this


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to