<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">-steve<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #B5C4DF 4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-right:0in">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">Steve Baker <sbaker@redhat.com><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:30 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, "dwalsh@redhat.com" <dwalsh@redhat.com><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Kolla] default docker storage backend for TripleO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Fox, Kevin M <<a href="mailto:Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov" target="_blank">Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">overlay2 is documented as a Technology Preview graph driver in the Atomic Host 7.3.4 release notes:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux_atomic_host/7/html-single/release_notes/">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux_atomic_host/7/html-single/release_notes/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">_____________________________<br>
From: Dan Prince [<a href="mailto:dprince@redhat.com">dprince@redhat.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:24 PM<br>
To: openstack-dev<br>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Kolla] default docker storage backend for TripleO<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
TripleO currently uses the default "loopback" docker storage device.<br>
This is not recommended for production (see 'docker info').<br>
<br>
We've been poking around with docker storage backends in TripleO for<br>
almost 2 months now here:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/451916/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/451916/</a><br>
<br>
For TripleO there are a couple of considerations:<br>
<br>
- we intend to support in place upgrades from baremetal to containers<br>
<br>
- when doing in place upgrades re-partitioning disks is hard, if not<br>
impossible. This makes using devicemapper hard.<br>
<br>
- we'd like to to use a docker storage backend that is production<br>
ready.<br>
<br>
- our target OS is latest Centos/RHEL 7<br>
<br>
As we approach pike 2 I'm keen to move towards a more production docker<br>
storage backend. Is there consensus that 'overlay2' is a reasonable<br>
approach to this? Or is it too early to use that with the combinations<br>
above?<br>
<br>
Looking around at what is recommended in other projects it seems to be<br>
a mix as well from devicemapper to btrfs.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.3/install_config/install/host_preparation.html#configuring-docker-storage" target="_blank">
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.3/install_config/in<br>
stall/host_preparation.html#configuring-docker-storage</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/kolla/tree/tools/setup_RedHat.sh#n30" target="_blank">
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/kolla/tree/tools/setup_RedH<br>
at.sh#n30</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 rhel/centos.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I want to get to the bottom of it so I'll reproduce and raise a bug as appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>