Dims, it might be overkill to introduce multi-Keystone + federation (I just quickly skimmed the PDF so apologies if I have the wrong end of it)?
Jon, you could just have multiple cinder-volume services and backends. We do this in the Nectar cloud - each site has cinder AZs matching nova AZs. By default the API won't let you attach a volume to a host in a non-matching AZ, maybe that's enough for you(?), but you could probably take it further with other cinder scheduler filters. On 22 March 2017 at 12:03, Davanum Srinivas <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops, Hit send before i finished > > https://info.massopencloud.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ > 03/Workshop-Resource-Federation-in-a-Multi-Landlord-Cloud.pdf > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/mixmatch > > Essentially you can do a single cinder proxy that can work with > multiple cinder backends (one use case) > > Thanks, > Dims > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > The folks from Boston University have done some work around this idea: > > > > https://github.com/openstack/mixmatch/blob/master/doc/ > source/architecture.rst > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Jonathan Mills <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Friends, > >> > >> I’m reaching out for assistance from anyone who may have confronted the > >> issue of dealing with ITAR data in an OpenStack cloud being used in some > >> department of the Federal Gov. > >> > >> ITAR (https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html) is a > less > >> restrictive level of security than classified data, but it has some > thorny > >> aspects to it, particularly where media is concerned: > >> > >> * you cannot co-mingle ITAR and non-ITAR data on the same physical hard > >> drives, and any drive, once it has been “tainted” with any ITAR data, > is now > >> an ITAR drive > >> > >> * when ITAR data is destroyed, a DBAN is insufficient — instead, you > >> physically shred the drive. No need to elaborate on how destructive > this > >> can get if you accidentally mingle ITAR with non-ITAR > >> > >> Certainly the multi-tenant model of OpenStack holds great promise in > Federal > >> agencies for supporting both ITAR and non-ITAR worlds, but great care > must > >> be taken that *somehow* things like Glance and Cinder don’t get mixed > up. > >> One must ensure that the ITAR tenants can only access Glance/Cinder in > ways > >> such that their backend storage is physically separate from any non-ITAR > >> tenants. Certainly I understand that Glance/Cinder can support multiple > >> storage backend types, such as File & Ceph, and maybe that is an avenue > to > >> explore to achieving the physical separation. But what if you want to > have > >> multiple different File backends? > >> > >> Do the ACLs exist to ensure that non-ITAR tenants can’t access ITAR > >> Glance/Cinder backends, and vice versa? > >> > >> Or…is it simpler to just build two OpenStack clouds….? > >> > >> Your thoughts will be most appreciated, > >> > >> > >> Jonathan Mills > >> > >> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-operators mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > -- Cheers, ~Blairo
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
