Open Stack

On 6/16/2015 4:21 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> The NFS, GlusterFS, SMBFS, and Quobyte libvirt volume drivers are all
> very similar.
>
> I want to extract a common base class that abstracts some of the common
> code and then let the sub-classes provide overrides where necessary.
>
> As part of this, I'm wondering if we could just have a single
> 'mount_point_base' config option rather than one per backend like we
> have today:
>
> nfs_mount_point_base
> glusterfs_mount_point_base
> smbfs_mount_point_base
> quobyte_mount_point_base
>
> With libvirt you can only have one of these drivers configured per
> compute host right?  So it seems to make sense that we could have one
> option used for all 4 different driver implementations and reduce some
> of the config option noise.
>
> I checked the os-brick change [1] proposed to nova to see if there would
> be any conflicts there and so far that's not touching any of these
> classes so seems like they could be worked in parallel.
>
> Are there any concerns with this?
>
> Is a blueprint needed for this refactor?
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175569/
>

I threw together a quick blueprint [1] just for tracking.

I'm assuming I don't need a spec for this.

[1] 
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/consolidate-libvirt-fs-volume-drivers

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann