Open Stack

Hi, Duncan

2015-11-30 15:54 GMT+08:00 Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com>:
> Hi WangHao
>
> This was quite thoroughly discussed during the early discussions on
> replication. The general statement was 'not yet'. Getting any kind of
> workable replication API has proven to be very, very difficult to get right
> - we won't know for another full cycle whether we've actually gotten it
> somewhere near right, as operators start to deploy it. Piling more feature
> in the replication API before a) it has been used by operators and b)
> storage vendors have implemented what we already has would IMO be a mistake.

I agree with you, in my mind, using replication what we have is first
thing we should done,
improve it much better is second thing, and then we will add another
new features
one by one stably.

> None of this means that more DR interfaces don't belong in cinder, just that
> getting them right, getting them universal and getting them useful is quite
> a hard problem, and not one we should be in a rush to solve. Particularly as
> DR and replication is still a niche area of cinder, and we still have major
> issues in our basic functionality.

Yes, this will convince me about DR in Cinder, very clearly, thanks.
>
> On 30 November 2015 at 03:45, hao wang <sxmatch1986 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sean and Michal,
>>
>> In fact, there is a reason that I ask this question. Recently I have a
>> confusion about if cinder should provide the ability of Disaster
>> Recovery to storage resources, like volume. I mean we have volume
>> replication v1&v2, but for DR, specially DR between two independent
>> OpenStack sites(production and DR site), I feel we still need more
>> features to support it, for example consistency group for replication,
>> etc. I'm not sure if those features belong in Cinder or some new
>> project for DR.
>>
>> BR
>> WangHao
>>
>> 2015-11-30 3:02 GMT+08:00 Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>:
>> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:44:19AM +0000, Dulko, Michal wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 10:56 +0800, hao wang wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> >
>> >> > I notice nova have a clarification of project scope:
>> >> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html
>> >> >
>> >> > I want to find cinder's, but failed,  do you know where to find it?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's important to let developers know what feature should be
>> >> > introduced into cinder and what shouldn't.
>> >> >
>> >> > BR
>> >> > Wang Hao
>> >>
>> >> I believe Nova team needed to formalize the scop to have an explanation
>> >> for all the "this doesn't belong in Nova" comments on feature requests.
>> >> Does Cinder suffer from similar problems? From my perspective it's not
>> >> critically needed.
>> >
>> > I agree. I haven't seen a need for something like that with Cinder. Wang
>> > Hao, is there a reason you feel you need that?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________________________
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Duncan Thomas
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>