[openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] whether the ServiceGroup in Cinder is necessary
michal.dulko at intel.com
Tue Dec 22 10:49:29 UTC 2015
On 12/17/2015 04:49 AM, li.yuanzhen at zte.com.cn wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'd like to start discussion on whether the servicegroup in Cinder
> is necessary.
> Recently, cinder can only support db driver, and doesn't have
> servicegroup concept.
> our team wants to implement the servicegroup feature using on
> tooz library. Like nova, when the state of service is required,
> it can be got through servicegroup.
> Besides, due to the cinder-volume-active-active-support merged,
> we think it makes the Service Group do more.
> Before the cinder-volume-active-active-support was proposed, Cinder
> has no concept of cluster. Therefore, we have a doubt that, if without
> cinder-volume-active-active-support, is it necessary to add feature of
> Any comments or suggestions?
> Best Regards,
It will not be possible to use A/A HA configuration of cinder-volume
service with LVM driver. According to latest User Survey  this driver
is running in 22% of deployments. ZooKeeper service groups will be still
useful there, as it will allow scheduler to know about failed
services/nodes much quicker and prevent from scheduling volumes there.
As we have initial Tooz integration  already merged for locking
purposes, I think that if we'll be able to implement SG in a
non-intrusive manner (without changing the default behavior) it would be
an interesting option for some deployments.
More information about the OpenStack-dev