Hi Sam, My opinion would be to converge, so to have Ekko features exported from the freezer-api and horizon web interface. Also the freezer-scheduler can be integrated, that would enable Ekko to execute backup syncronized over multiple nodes.
By all mean, this does not mean you have to, it's just how I feel about it. We are totally open, so please let us know if there's any interest from your side. Thanks, Fausto Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Jan 2016, at 08:58, Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> >> wrote: >> Sam Yaple wrote: >>> We would like to introduce you to a new community-driven OpenStack >>> project called Ekko. >>> >>> The aim of Ekko is to provide incremental block-level backup and restore >>> of Nova instances. We see backups as a key area that is missing in >>> OpenStack. One issue that has previously prevented backups in OpenStack >>> is the scalability of the storage backend. Object-storage is the answer >>> to this scalability problem, but with block-based backups you often see >>> large files that require POSIX operations to perform retention and >>> deletions. These operations are not able to be performed in the >>> traditional way in object storage, which has prevented leveraging >>> object-storage to its full potential. With Ekko we can solve this issue >>> allowing us to use storage that can scale with OpenStack. >> >> Hi! >> >> How does Ekko compare to / differ from Freezer, which is an official >> OpenStack project targeted to the same problem space ? I suspect this is >> more low-level ? Is there some potential for convergence between the two >> projects ? > > Hello Thierry, > > These are good questions. The biggest difference you already caught onto, > Ekko is more low-level. Freezer is targeted at the filesystem and specific > applications (like databases) directly. > > There are only two places with overlapping goals that I know of*. The first > is backup of a Cinder volume which is a future goal of Ekko and something > Freezer can currently do for LVM backed Cinder. The second is backup of a > nova instance. This isn't something freezer does directly, instead it > leverages nova-snapshot which is very disruptive to the instance and will > cause downtime for said instance. The current pursuit of Ekko is _live_ > incremental block-level backup of an nova instance and in that regard there > is no overlap with Freezer or any other project for that matter. > > To answer the question of convergence between Ekko and Freezer, I would say > it's possible. That being said both projects are addressing different > problems in different ways. As discussed above, there is little overlap > between the two projects and the areas where there is overlap of goals have > drastically different implementations. I could put together a list of Ekko vs > Freezer, but I think that would be comparing apples to oranges. To state this > in terms of compatibility, Ekko and Freezer can run side-by-side without > interfering with each other in anyway. > > *Disclaimer: I am no expert on Freezer, I may be wrong in some statements and > am open to correction. > > Sam Yaple > >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
