I'm an architect at Nexenta. So not surprisingly I fully agree that Gluster
is a poor choice for storage in OpenStack.
However the real question is what criteria storage vendors should be judged
by the project. These should be
clearly stated and easily verified. Once compliance is dealt with, judging
the quality of specific solutions and
their suitability to specific needs is something that the end users should
do, not the openstack project.
The Cinder project has set minimum standards for Volume Drivers for the
Havana release. Those standards should be applied without debating their
specifics for Gluster on the mailing list.
Storage vendors are used to dealing with certification processes. We know
how to deal with rules that state your software must do X and Y by date Z.
I would be in full agreement, however, that OpenStack should not
accommodate an API tailored to Gluster's unique architecture.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
