Open Stack

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 16:54 Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp at gmail.com> wrote:

> James, thank you for your answer.
>

No problem.

I'll file bug to glance - but in current releases glance-charm have to
> do it himself, right?
>

We should be able to add the required bits using an Ubuntu SRU - lets raise
the bug and see exactly what needs to be done, and then we can decide
whether the charm workaround is still required.

I'm not sure that I'm correctly understand your question.
> I suppose that deployment will have glance and cinder on different
> machines.
>

yes - principle charms should typically be deployed in their own units, as
the assume ownership over the filesystem.


> Also there will be one relation between cinder and glance to configure
> glance to store images in cinder.
>

ack

Other steps are optional -
> If cinder is used specific backend that needs additional configuration
> - then it can be done via storage-backend relation (from subordinate
> charm).
> If this backend needs to configure glances' filters or glance's config
> - then it should be done via any subordinate charm to glance (but
> glance doesn't have such relations now).
>

No - we'd need to add a container scoped 'image-backend' relation to
glance, allowing a subordinate to be deployed with glance to install the
required rootwrap configuration, dependencies etc...

You next email covers that - so I'll respond on that there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160804/b95d9aa9/attachment.html>