Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Project mascot available

How does Horse translate to Cinder block? I don't get it. Our original Cinder block made a lot of sense, considering the name of the project. This is...just an odd horse for no particular reason. On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > For your

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [Nova] Extend attached volume

Actually, this is incorrect. The sticking point of this all was doing the coordination and initiation of workflow from Nova. Cinder already has the ability to call the driver to do the resize of the volume. Cinder just prevents this now, because there is work that has to be done on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Looking for Docker images for Cinder, Glance etc for oVirt

Also, For what it's worth, Cinder has a docker compose contrib directory here that we merged a month or so ago for standing up cinder. https://github.com/openstack/cinder/tree/master/contrib/block-box On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Leni Kadali Mutungi wrote: > Hello

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Proposing TommyLikeHu for Cinder core

+1 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > I am proposing we add TommyLike as a Cinder core. > > DISCLAIMER: We work for the same company. > > I have held back on proposing him for some time because of this conflict. > But > I think from his number of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder][Nova][Requirements] Lib freeze exception for os-brick

Do it +1 On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > I am requesting a library release of os-brick during the feature freeze > in order to fix an issue with the recently landed online volume extend > feature across Nova and Cinder. > > Patches have landed in

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Target classes in Cinder

I had initially looked into this for the 3PAR drivers when we initially were working on the target driver code. The problem I found was, it would take a fair amount of time to refactor the code, with marginal benefit. Yes, the design is better, but I couldn't justify the refactoring time, effort

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

I completely agree with you here John. I still prefer to use screen for my devstack installs, it's just far far easier to use for development. systemd is a pain to use in comparison. This is a major step backwards for developers. :( On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:29 PM, John Griffith

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Proper behavior for os-force_detach

The whole purpose of this test is to simulate the case where Nova doesn't know where the vm is anymore, or may simply not exist, but we need to clean up the cinder side of things. That being said, with the new attach API, the connector is being saved in the cinder database for each volume

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Update attachments on replication failover

I think you might be able to get away with just calling os-brick's connect_volume again without the need to call disconnect_volume first. calling disconnect_volume wouldn't be good for volumes that are being used, just to refresh the connection_info on that volume. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 2:56