Open Stack

On 23/12/13 07:57 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>On 12/23/2013 05:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>>On 21/12/13 00:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>>Cinder is for block storage. Images are just a bunch of blocks, and
>>>>all the store drivers do is take a chunked stream of input blocks and
>>>>store them to disk/swift/s3/rbd/toaster and stream those blocks back
>>>>out again.
>>>>
>>>>So, perhaps the most appropriate place for this is in Cinder-land.
>>>
>>>This is an interesting suggestion.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't mind putting it there, although I still prefer it to be
>>>under glance for historical reasons and because Glance team knows that
>>>code.
>>>
>>>How would it work if this lib falls under Block Storage program?
>>>
>>>Should the glance team be added as core contributors of this project?
>>>or Just some of them interested in contributing / reviewing those
>>>patches?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like John and Mark to weigh in too.
>>
>>Programs are a team of people on a specific mission. If the stores code
>>is maintained by a completely separate group (glance devs), then it
>>doesn't belong in the Block Storage program... unless the Cinder devs
>>intend to adopt it over the long run (and therefore the contributors of
>>the Block Storage program form a happy family rather than two separate
>>groups).
>
>Understood. The reason I offered this up as a suggestion is that 
>currently Cinder uses the Glance REST API to store and retrieve volume 
>snapshots, and it would be more efficient to just give Cinder the 
>ability to directly retrieve the blocks from one of the underlying 
>store drivers (same goes for Nova's use of Glance). ...and, since the 
>glance.store drivers are dealing with blocks, I thought it made more 
>sense in Cinder.
>
>>Depending on the exact nature of the "couple of other scenarios where
>>using this code is necessary", I think it would either belong in Glance
>>or in Oslo.
>
>Perhaps something in olso then. oslo.blockstream? oslo.blockstore?

What about just oslo.store or oslo.objstore ?

I'm leaning towards Oslo as well. I know Mark preferred Glance so I'd
like him to chime in too.

In order to do this, though, we'll need to add some Glance developers
to the group of reviewers of this library at least during the Ith
release cycle. This will help with providing enough reviews. It'll
also help with sharing the knowledge / history about this package.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131223/f27bc488/attachment.pgp>