[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Kolla] default docker storage backend for TripleO
dprince at redhat.com
Thu May 18 11:21:44 UTC 2017
On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 03:29 +0000, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> My experience with BTRFS has been flawless. My experience with
> overlayfs is that occasionally (older centos kernels) returned
> ???????? as permissions (rather the drwxrwrw). This most often
> happened after using the yum overlay driver. I’ve found overlay to
> be pretty reliable as a “read-only” filesystem – eg just serving up
> container images, not persistent storage.
We've now switched to 'overlay2' and things seem happier. CI passes and
for me locally I'm not seeing any issues in TripleO CI yet either.
Curious to see if the Kolla tests upstream work with it as well:
> YMMV. Overlayfs is the long-term filesystem of choice for the use
> case you outlined. I’ve heard overlayfs has improved over the last
> year in terms of backport quality so maybe it is approaching ready.
> From: Steve Baker <sbaker at redhat.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:30 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <o
> penstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>, "dwalsh at redhat.com" <dwalsh at redhat
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Kolla] default docker storage
> backend for TripleO
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>
> I've only used btrfs and devicemapper on el7. btrfs has worked well.
> devicemapper ate may data on multiple occasions. Is redhat supporting
> overlay in the el7 kernels now?
> overlay2 is documented as a Technology Preview graph driver in the
> Atomic Host 7.3.4 release notes:
> From: Dan Prince [dprince at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:24 PM
> To: openstack-dev
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Kolla] default docker storage
> backend for TripleO
> TripleO currently uses the default "loopback" docker storage device.
> This is not recommended for production (see 'docker info').
> We've been poking around with docker storage backends in TripleO for
> almost 2 months now here:
> For TripleO there are a couple of considerations:
> - we intend to support in place upgrades from baremetal to
> - when doing in place upgrades re-partitioning disks is hard, if not
> impossible. This makes using devicemapper hard.
> - we'd like to to use a docker storage backend that is production
> - our target OS is latest Centos/RHEL 7
> As we approach pike 2 I'm keen to move towards a more production
> storage backend. Is there consensus that 'overlay2' is a reasonable
> approach to this? Or is it too early to use that with the
> Looking around at what is recommended in other projects it seems to
> a mix as well from devicemapper to btrfs.
>  https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.3/install_config/
>  http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/kolla/tree/tools/setup_Re
> I'd love to be able to use overlay2. I've CCed Daniel Walsh with the
> hope we can get a general overview of the maturity of overlay2 on
> I tried using overlay2 recently to create an undercloud and hit an
> issue doing a "cp -a *" on deleted files. This was with kernel-
> 3.10.0-514.16.1 and docker-1.12.6.
> I want to get to the bottom of it so I'll reproduce and raise a bug
> as appropriate.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
More information about the OpenStack-dev