On 10/12/2016 02:29 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote:

On 10/12/2016 07:10 AM, Giulio Fidente wrote:

we introduced support for the deployment of Ceph in the liberty
release so that it could optionally be used as backend for one or more
of Cinder, Glance, Nova and more recently Gnocchi.

We used to deploy Ceph MONs on the controller nodes and Ceph OSDs on
dedicated ceph-storage nodes so a deployment of OpenStack with Ceph
would need at least 1 more additional node to host a Ceph OSD.

In our HA scenario the storage backends are configured as follows:

Glance -> Swift
Nova (ephemeral) -> Local
Cinder (persistent) -> LVM (on controllers)
Gnocchi -> Swift

The downside of the above configuration is that Cinder volumes can not
be replicated across the controller nodes and become unavailable if a
controller fails, while production environments generally expect
persistent storage to be highly available. Cinder volumes instead
could even get lost completely in case of a permanent failure of a

With the Newton release and the composable roles we can now deploy
Ceph OSDs on the compute nodes, removing the requirement we had for an
additional node to host a Ceph OSD.

I would like to ask for some feedback on the possibility of deploying
Ceph by default in the HA scenario and use it as backend for Cinder.

Also using Swift as backend for Glance and Gnocchi is enough to cover
the availability issue for the data, but it also means we're storing
that data on the controller nodes which might or might not be wanted;
I don't see a strong reason for defaulting them to Ceph, but it might
make more sense when Ceph is available; feedback about this would be
appreciated as well.
I think it would be important to take into account the recently created
guiding principles [0]:

"While the software that OpenStack produces has well defined and
documented APIs, the primary output of OpenStack is software, not API
definitions. We expect people who say they run “OpenStack” to run the
software produced by and in the community, rather than alternative
implementations of the API."

In the case of Cinder, I think the situation is a bit muddy as LVM is
not openstack software, and my limited understanding is that LVM is used
as a reference implementation, but in the case of Swift, I think RGW
would be considered an 'alternative implementation of the API'.


hi Thiago,

sorry if it wasn't clear in my original message but I did not suggest to replace Swift with Ceph RGW.

Swift would continue to be deployed by default, not RGW.

The feedback I'm asking for is about storing (or not) the Cinder volumes in Ceph for the HA scenario by default, and also store the Glance images and Gnocchi metrics in Ceph or rather keep that data in Swift.
Giulio Fidente

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

Reply via email to