<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Price, Loren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Michael.Price@netapp.com" target="_blank">Michael.Price@netapp.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hey,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">We’re looking into implementing the
<a href="https://github.com/openstack/cinder-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/replication_v2.rst" target="_blank">
VolumeReplication_V2</a> spec for our NetApp E-Series volume driver. Looking at the specification, I can foresee a problem with implementing the new API call “</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white">failover_replicated_volume(volume)<span> “
with an unmanaged replication target. I believe with a managed target we can provide it, if I’m understanding correctly that it merely requires updating the host id for the volume. Based on that, I have two questions:</span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background:white"> </span></span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span>1.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Is it acceptable, in implementing this spec, to only provide this API for managed targets (and either throw an exception or essentially make a no-op) for an unmanaged replication target?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p><u></u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span>2.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">In general, if a storage backend is incapable of performing a certain operation, what is the correct way to handle it? Can the driver implement the spec at all? Should it throw a NotImplementedError?
No-op?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Michael Price<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">Ooops, did I not respond to the list on that last response? Just incase here it is again:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><span class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)">1.<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Is it acceptable, in implementing this spec, to only provide this API for managed targets (and either throw an exception or essentially make a no-op) for an unmanaged replication target?</span></p></div></blockquote></span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline">Yes by </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline">design it's set up such that it's left up to configuration. In other words the idea is that we have fairly loose definitions around the API calls themselves to allow for differing implementations.</div></div><span class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><p><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)">2.<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">In general, if a storage backend is incapable of performing a certain operation, what is the correct way to handle it? Can the driver implement the spec at all? Should it throw a NotImplementedError? No-op?</span></p></div></blockquote></span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline">Depends on who you ask :) IMO we need to do a better job of this, this could be documenting in the deployment guides how to enable/disable API calls in certain deployments so that unsupported calls are just flat out not available. My true belief is that we shouldn't be implementing features that you can't run with every/any backend device in the first place, but that's my usual rant and somewhat off topic here :)</div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline"><br></div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline">Note that a lot of the logic for replication in V2 was moved into the volume-type and the conf file precisely to address some of the issues you mention above. The idea being that if the capabilities of the backend don't match replication specs in the type then the command fails for no-valid host. The one thing I don't like about this is how we relay that info to the end user (or more accurately the fact that we don't). We just put the volume in error state and the only info regarding why is in the logs which the end user doesn't have. This is where something like a better more clear policy file would help as well as providing a capabilities call in the API.</div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline"><br></div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;display:inline">By the way, I'm glad you asked these questions here. This is part of the reason why I was so strongly opposed to merging an implementation of the V2 replication in Liberty. I think it's important to have more than one or two vendors looking at this and working out details so we release something that is stable and usable. My philosophy is that now for M we have a foundation in the core code that will likely evolve as drivers begin implementing the feature.</div></div></div><br></div></div>