Open Stack

On 12/23/2013 08:48 AM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/23/2013 05:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>         Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>             On 21/12/13 00:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>                 Cinder is for block storage. Images are just a bunch of
>                 blocks, and
>                 all the store drivers do is take a chunked stream of
>                 input blocks and
>                 store them to disk/swift/s3/rbd/toaster and stream those
>                 blocks back
>                 out again.
>
>                 So, perhaps the most appropriate place for this is in
>                 Cinder-land.
>
>
>             This is an interesting suggestion.
>
>             I wouldn't mind putting it there, although I still prefer it
>             to be
>             under glance for historical reasons and because Glance team
>             knows that
>             code.
>
>             How would it work if this lib falls under Block Storage program?
>
>             Should the glance team be added as core contributors of this
>             project?
>             or Just some of them interested in contributing / reviewing
>             those
>             patches?
>
>             Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like John and Mark to weigh
>             in too.
>
>
>         Programs are a team of people on a specific mission. If the
>         stores code
>         is maintained by a completely separate group (glance devs), then it
>         doesn't belong in the Block Storage program... unless the Cinder
>         devs
>         intend to adopt it over the long run (and therefore the
>         contributors of
>         the Block Storage program form a happy family rather than two
>         separate
>         groups).
>
>
>     Understood. The reason I offered this up as a suggestion is that
>     currently Cinder uses the Glance REST API to store and retrieve
>     volume snapshots, and it would be more efficient to just give Cinder
>     the ability to directly retrieve the blocks from one of the
>     underlying store drivers (same goes for Nova's use of Glance).
>     ...and, since the glance.store drivers are dealing with blocks, I
>     thought it made more sense in Cinder.
>
>
> True, Cinder and Nova should be talking more directly to the underlying
> stores--however their direct interface should probably be through
> glanceclient. (Glanceclient could evolve to use the glance.store code I
> imagine.)

Hmm, that is a very interesting suggestion. glanceclient containing the 
store drivers. I like it. Will be a bit weird, though, having the 
glanceclient call the Glance API server to get the storage location 
details, which then calls the glanceclient code to store/retrieve the 
blocks :)

-jay