Open Stack

Hi WangHao

This was quite thoroughly discussed during the early discussions on
replication. The general statement was 'not yet'. Getting any kind of
workable replication API has proven to be very, very difficult to get right
- we won't know for another full cycle whether we've actually gotten it
somewhere near right, as operators start to deploy it. Piling more feature
in the replication API before a) it has been used by operators and b)
storage vendors have implemented what we already has would IMO be a mistake.

None of this means that more DR interfaces don't belong in cinder, just
that getting them right, getting them universal and getting them useful is
quite a hard problem, and not one we should be in a rush to solve.
Particularly as DR and replication is still a niche area of cinder, and we
still have major issues in our basic functionality.

On 30 November 2015 at 03:45, hao wang <sxmatch1986 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sean and Michal,
>
> In fact, there is a reason that I ask this question. Recently I have a
> confusion about if cinder should provide the ability of Disaster
> Recovery to storage resources, like volume. I mean we have volume
> replication v1&v2, but for DR, specially DR between two independent
> OpenStack sites(production and DR site), I feel we still need more
> features to support it, for example consistency group for replication,
> etc. I'm not sure if those features belong in Cinder or some new
> project for DR.
>
> BR
> WangHao
>
> 2015-11-30 3:02 GMT+08:00 Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:44:19AM +0000, Dulko, Michal wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 10:56 +0800, hao wang wrote:
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> >
> >> > I notice nova have a clarification of project scope:
> >> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html
> >> >
> >> > I want to find cinder's, but failed,  do you know where to find it?
> >> >
> >> > It's important to let developers know what feature should be
> >> > introduced into cinder and what shouldn't.
> >> >
> >> > BR
> >> > Wang Hao
> >>
> >> I believe Nova team needed to formalize the scop to have an explanation
> >> for all the "this doesn't belong in Nova" comments on feature requests.
> >> Does Cinder suffer from similar problems? From my perspective it's not
> >> critically needed.
> >
> > I agree. I haven't seen a need for something like that with Cinder. Wang
> > Hao, is there a reason you feel you need that?
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151130/bf730061/attachment.html>