On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Dan Genin <daniel.ge...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> So this brings us back to the original proposal of having separate > backing files for Cinder and Nova which Dean thought might take too much > space. > Between Cinder, Nova and Swift (and Ceph, etc) everybody wants some loopback disk images. DevStack's Swift and Ceph configurations assume loopback devices and do no sharing. > Duncan, could you please elaborate on the pain a single volume group is > likely to cause for Cinder? Is it a show stopper? > Back in the day, DevStack was built to configure Cinder (and Nova Volume before that) to use a specific existing volume group (VOLUME_GROUP_NAME) or create a loopback file if necessary. With the help of VOLUME_NAME_PREFIX and volume_name_template DevStack knew which logical volumes belong to Cinder and could Do The Right Thing. With three loopback files being created, all wanting larger and larger defaults, adding a fourth becomes Just One More Thing. If Nova's use of LVM is similar enough to Cinder's (uses deterministic naming for the LVs) I'm betting we could make it work. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev