It is quite possible that the requirement for glance to own images can be
achieved by having a glance tenant in cinder, and using clone and
volume-transfer functionalities in cinder to get copies to the right place.
I know there is some attempts to move away from the single glance tenant
model
On 19/11/14 15:21 +0800, henry hly wrote:
In the Previous BP [1], support for iscsi backend is introduced into
glance. However, it was abandoned because of Cinder backend
replacement.
The reason is that all storage backend details should be hidden by
cinder, not exposed to other projects.
I think that having a stand-alone (client of cinder) rich data streaming
service (http put/get with offset support, which can be used for
conventional glance plus volume upload/download directly), and rich
data-source semantics exposed so that it can be used in an optimal way
by/for nova, need
Hi Flavio,
Thanks for your information about Cinder Store, Yet I have a little
concern about Cinder backend: Suppose cinder and glance both use Ceph
as Store, then if cinder can do instant copy to glance by ceph clone
(maybe not now but some time later), what information would be stored
in
Hey Henry/Folks,
I think it could make sense for Glance to store the volume UUID, the idea
is that no matter where an image is stored it should be *owned* by Glance
and not deleted out from under it. But that is more of a single tenant vs
multi tenant cinder store.
It makes sense for Cinder to
In the Previous BP [1], support for iscsi backend is introduced into
glance. However, it was abandoned because of Cinder backend
replacement.
The reason is that all storage backend details should be hidden by
cinder, not exposed to other projects. However, with more and more
interest in Converged
