Open Stack

On 06/17/2015 12:21 AM, 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.
>

os-brick has ability to mount different filesystems, you could find it 
in the os_brick/remotefs/remotefs.py file. This module is already used 
in cinder's FS volume drivers, which you've mentioned.

> Are there any concerns with this?
>
> Is a blueprint needed for this refactor?
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175569/
>


-- 
Dmitry Guryanov