[openstack-dev] [cinder]Question for availability_zone of cinder
sxmatch1986 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 06:35:45 UTC 2015
Thanks Duncan. I was thinking if we can use volume_type instead of
available_zone totally. I mean whatever you have, one or many c-vol node,
you can just use volume_type to schedule volume creation on different
backends without using AZs at all. I also think available_zone is useless
if there is only one c-vol node existing. So is it possible that we remove
it from cinder?
Or we should tell admin/users clearly that the available_zone should be
used under multiple c-vol nodes situation.
2015-07-20 6:36 GMT+08:00 Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com>:
> So this has come up a few times. My question is, does having one node
> serving several backends really form multiple AZs? Not really, the c-vol
> node becomes a single point of failure.
> There might be value in moving the AZ setting into the per-backend
> configurables, if it doesn't work there already, for testing if nothing
> else, but I do worry that it encorages people to misunderstand or worse
> intentionally fake multiple AZs.
> On 19 July 2015 at 05:19, hao wang <sxmatch1986 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi stackers,
>> I found now cinder only can configure one storage_availability_zone for
>> cinder-volume. If using multi-backend in one cinder-volume node, could we
>> have different AZ for each backend? So that we can specify each backend as
>> a AZ and create volume in this AZ.
>> Wang Hao
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Duncan Thomas
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Best Wishes For You!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev