On 04/20/2012 02:23 PM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
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
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
under VDSM. I was wondering if the setupStorage would be something where
be used to do the work, it seems fit for purpose here.
In case there is some missing functionality in lsm, vdsm should add
requirements to it.
Engine-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list