Open Stack

Thanks for the info!

I think for the migration use case this would definitely solve the issue,
but for the image cache we would need more as we would be creating volume
objects and need to track them in the Cinder database. We could use a
system like that to essentially put a 'hidden' flag in the meta-data
entries of the cached images, but its not much better than just adding a
hidden flag in regards to having to filter them out from api calls and not
accounting for them in quota anywhere.

Alternatives for using a special tenant are definitely worth considering, I
admit its not really an ideal solution, but it happens to be fairly
appealing for the problem we are solving. I'll take a closer look at the
Manilla changes and adjust the spec's I have for cinder as needed.

-Patrick

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Sheng Bo Hou <sbhou at cn.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Valeriy,
>
> Thank you for telling me about the private driver storage feature from
> Manila. I have reviewed the patch and it can definitely resolve the dummy
> destination volume issue I have during migration in Cinder. I do not deny
> that it is a good approach.
>
> However, I need to put Patrick in the CC list to make him aware of this.
> During the previous Cinder IRC, we made an agreement that Cinder will go
> along this approach to consider all the common issues by introducing a
> cinder-internal tenant. Please check the cinder-spec:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186232/. I guess cinder will go along
> this approach.
>
> @Patrick, I am not sure what our implementation is gonna be. Is it
> possible that similar data model can be used for cinder as it is in Manila?
> Please check *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176877/*
> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176877/>
>
> Best wishes,
> Vincent Hou (侯胜博)
>
> Staff Software Engineer, Open Standards and Open Source Team, Emerging
> Technology Institute, IBM China Software Development Lab
>
> Tel: 86-10-82450778 Fax: 86-10-82453660
> Notes ID: Sheng Bo Hou/China/IBM at IBMCN    E-mail: sbhou at cn.ibm.com
> Address:3F Ring, Building 28 Zhongguancun Software Park, 8 Dongbeiwang
> West Road, Haidian District, Beijing, P.R.C.100193
> 地址:北京市海淀区东北旺西路8号中关村软件园28号楼环宇大厦3层 邮编：100193
>
>
>  *Valeriy Ponomaryov <vponomaryov at mirantis.com
> <vponomaryov at mirantis.com>>*
>
> 05/27/2015 02:12 PM
>  Please respond to
> "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>
>   To
> "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> cc
> rodrigo.barbieri2010 at gamil.com
> Subject
> Re: [openstack-dev] [Manila] About how to hide the dummy destination
> record during migration
>
>
>
>
> Hello Vincent Hou,
>
> We, Manila folks, are about to merge one of new features - "private driver
> storage" [1]. That is going to serve for not-user facing data storage
> related to any resource that can be reached by both - API and share driver.
>
> And in case of share migration, it will be possible to avoid creation of
> "temporary share" DB record and use this data storage for storing all
> required data per each share.
>
> Please, look at it, and provide feedback, whether such approach can be
> used in your case or not and why.
>
> [1] - *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176877/*
> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176877/>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Valeriy Ponomaryov
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Sheng Bo Hou <*sbhou at cn.ibm.com*
> <sbhou at cn.ibm.com>> wrote:
> Hi everyone working for Manila,
>
> This is Vincent Hou from IBM. I am working on all the migration issues in
> Cinder.
>
> I had one session for the Cinder migration issue in Vancouver and some of
> you folks attended it. The etherpad link is
> *https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/volume-migration-improvement*
> <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/volume-migration-improvement>
> Per the issue that we had better not let the user see the target volume
> during migration when issuing command "cinder list", we can add an
> additional flag into the volume table, for example, "hidden", into it. The
> default value is 0, meaning that it will display for "cinder list". For the
> target volume during migration. We can set it to 1, so the user will not be
> able to see it with the command "cinder list". I think it is a
> straightforward approach we can go with. I just sync up with you folks, so
> that we can have a consistent way to resolve this issue in both Cinder and
> Manila. I just need to make sure we are on the same page. Is this solution
> OK with you folks? Especially @Rodrigo Barbieri and @Erlon Cruz, etc.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
> Vincent Hou (侯胜博)
>
> Staff Software Engineer, Open Standards and Open Source Team, Emerging
> Technology Institute, IBM China Software Development Lab
>
> Tel: 86-10-82450778 Fax: 86-10-82453660
> Notes ID: Sheng Bo Hou/China/IBM at IBMCN    E-mail: *sbhou at cn.ibm.com*
> <sbhou at cn.ibm.com>
> Address:3F Ring, Building 28 Zhongguancun Software Park, 8 Dongbeiwang
> West Road, Haidian District, Beijing, P.R.C.100193
> 地址:北京市海淀区东北旺西路8号中关村软件园28号楼环宇大厦3层 邮编：100193
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> *OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe*
> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
> *http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev*
> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150527/dd88c17f/attachment.html>