So although I believe that when we create a gluster volume or an
ovirt storage domain then indeed we shouldn't need a lot of low
level commands, but it would appear to me that not allowing for
more control when needed is not going to work and that there are
enough use cases which do not involve a gluster volume nor a
storage domain to warrant this to be generic.
I'm not against more control; I'm against uncontrollable API such as
I can't argue with this.
I think what we're missing here though is something similar to setupNetworks 
which would solve the problem.  Not have 100 verbs (createPartition, createFS, 
createVG, createLV,  setupRaid,...) but rather have setupStorage (better name 
suggestions are welcome) which would get the list of objects to use and the 
final configuration to setup.

This way we'd have a 2 stage process:
1. setupStorage (generic)

I was looking up on the VDSM archives and there are talks of using libstoragemgmt (lsm) under VDSM. I was wondering if the setupStorage would be something where lsm would
be used to do the work, it seems fit for purpose here.

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to