Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] Any updates on share groups?

[Knight, Clinton]

Hi, John.  In the Friday session, the community agreed that groups would 
support multiple share types in the same group, that they would be called 
‘share groups’, and that a higher-level, multi-backend grouping construct to be 
discussed later would be more flexible if based on something like metadata tags 
(allowing shares to have multiple tags).  We haven’t specified the driver 
interface yet, but we’ll aim to keep it similar to the CG interface so driver 
changes should be minimal.

And yes, the community also agreed to adopt a specs process:

* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311853/
* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312102/

Clinton




On 5/4/16, 7:16 AM, "John Spray"  wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Back in the office with only minor jetlag... unfortunately I had to
>skip the discussion last Friday, I was wondering if there was much
>more discussion about how share groups were going to work, especially
>from a driver POV?  The etherpad notes are mainly recap.
>
>I'd like to get ahead of this for the cephfs driver, because we have
>CG support in the existing code.  I'm hoping we'll be able to just
>invisibly map what we used to call CGs into new share groups that
>happen to have the snapshottable group type.
>
>Related: IIRC the group was in favour of adopting a spec process, did
>we agree to do that for the Newton features?
>
>Cheers,
>John
__
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-dev] [Manila] Any updates on share groups?

[John Spray]

Hi all,

Back in the office with only minor jetlag... unfortunately I had to
skip the discussion last Friday, I was wondering if there was much
more discussion about how share groups were going to work, especially
from a driver POV?  The etherpad notes are mainly recap.

I'd like to get ahead of this for the cephfs driver, because we have
CG support in the existing code.  I'm hoping we'll be able to just
invisibly map what we used to call CGs into new share groups that
happen to have the snapshottable group type.

Related: IIRC the group was in favour of adopting a spec process, did
we agree to do that for the Newton features?

Cheers,
John

__
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