Open Stack

The aim is cloud storage that isn't affected by a host failure and major
players who deploy hyper-scaling clouds architect them to prevent that from
happening. To me that's cloud 101. Physical machine goes down, data
disappears, VM's using it fail and folks scratch their head and ask this
was in the cloud right? That's the indication of a service failure, not a
feature.

I'm just a very big proponent of cloud arch that provides a seamless
abstraction between the service and the hardware. Ceph and DRDB are decent
enough. But tying data access to a single host by design is a mistake IMHO
so I'm asking why we do things the way we do and whether that's the way
it's always going to be.

Of course this bumps into the question whether all apps hosted in the cloud
should be cloud aware or whether the cloud should have some tolerance for
legacy apps that are not written that way.



*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure of any particular benefit to trying to run cinder volumes
> over swift, and I'm a little confused by the aim - you'd do better to use
> something closer to purpose designed for the job if you want software fault
> tolerant block storage - ceph and drdb are the two open-source options I
> know of.
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 19:40, Adam Lawson <alawson at aqorn.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Got some questions for whether certain use cases have been addressed and
>> if so, where things are at. A few things I find particularly interesting:
>>
>>    - Automatic Nova evacuation for VM's using shared storage
>>    - Using Swift as a back-end for Cinder
>>
>> I know we discussed Nova evacuate last year with some dialog leading into
>> the Paris Operator Summit and there were valid unknowns around what would
>> be required to constitute a host being "down", by what logic that would be
>> calculated and what would be required to initiate the move and which
>> project should own the code to make it happen. Just wondering where we are
>> with that.
>>
>> On a separate note, Ceph has the ability to act as a back-end for Cinder,
>> Swift does not. Perhaps there are performance trade-offs to consider but
>> I'm a big fan of service plane abstraction and what I'm not a fan of is
>> tying data to physical hardware. The fact this continues to be the case
>> with Cinder troubles me.
>>
>> So a question; are these being addressed somewhere in some context? I
>> admittedly don't want to distract momentum on the Nova/Cinder teams, but I
>> am curious if these exist (or conflict) with our current infrastructure
>> blueprints?
>>
>> Mahalo,
>> Adam
>>
>> *Adam Lawson*
>>
>> AQORN, Inc.
>> 427 North Tatnall Street
>> Ste. 58461
>> Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
>> Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
>> International: +1 302-387-4660
>> Direct: +1 916-246-2072
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Duncan Thomas
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150318/34b7521d/attachment.html>