Open Stack

On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 17:04 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 03/02/14 10:13 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 10:03 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >> IMHO, the bit that should really be optimized is the selection of the
> >> store nodes where the image should be downloaded from. That is,
> >> selecting the nearest location from the image locations and this is
> >> something that perhaps should happen in glance-api, not nova.
> >
> >I disagree. The reason is because glance-api does not know where nova
> >is. Nova does.
> 
> Nova doesn't know where glance is either. More info is required in
> order to finally do something smart here. Not sure what the best
> approach is just yet but as mentioned in my previous email I think
> focusing on the stores for now is the thing to do. (As you pointed out
> bellow too).

Right, which is why I am recommending to get rid of glance-api below...

> >I continue to think that the best performance gains will come from
> >getting rid of glance-api entirely, putting the block-streaming bits
> >into a separate Python library, and having Nova and Cinder pull
> >image/volume bits directly from backend storage instead of going through
> >the glance middleman.
> 
> This is exactly what we're doing by pulling glance.store into its own
> library. I'm working on this myself. We are not completely getting rid
> of glance-api but we're working on not depending on it to get the
> image data.

Cool. Have you pushed a patch for this I can see?

Thanks, Flavio!
-jay