On 17 June 2015 at 15:36, Dmitry Guryanov <dgurya...@parallels.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 02:14 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> On 17 June 2015 at 00:21, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com >> <mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote: >> >> The NFS, GlusterFS, SMBFS, and Quobyte libvirt volume drivers are >> all very similar. >> >> I want to extract a common base class that abstracts some of the >> common code and then let the sub-classes provide overrides where >> necessary. >> >> As part of this, I'm wondering if we could just have a single >> 'mount_point_base' config option rather than one per backend like >> we have today: >> >> nfs_mount_point_base >> glusterfs_mount_point_base >> smbfs_mount_point_base >> quobyte_mount_point_base >> >> With libvirt you can only have one of these drivers configured per >> compute host right? So it seems to make sense that we could have >> one option used for all 4 different driver implementations and >> reduce some of the config option noise. >> >> >> I can't claim to have tried it, but from a cinder PoV there is nothing >> stopping you having both e.g. an NFS and a gluster backend at the same >> time, and I'd expect nova to work with it. If it doesn't, I'd consider >> it a bug. >> > > I agree, if 2 volume backends will use the same share definition, like > "10.10.2.3:/public" you'll get the same mountpoint for them. > I meant that you should be able to have two complete separate backends, with two different mount points (e.g. /mnt/nfs, /mnt/gluster) and use both simultaneously, e.g. two different volume types. -- Duncan Thomas
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev