Open Stack

On 08/30/2016 08:50 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 8/30/2016 10:50 AM, Jay S. Bryant wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I wanted to follow up on the e-mail thread [1] on Cloning support in the
>> NFS driver.  The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the plan for the
>> NFS driver going forward as I see it.
>>
>> First, I am aware that the driver has gone quite some time without care
>> and feeding.  For a number of reasons, the Public Cloud team within IBM
>> is currently dependent upon the NFS driver working properly for the
>> cloud environment we are building.  Given our current dependence on the
>> driver we are planning on picking up the driver and maintaining it.
>>
>> The first step in this process was getting the existing patch that adds
>> snapshot support for NFS [2] rebased.  I did this work a couple of weeks
>> ago and also got all the unit tests working for the unit test
>> environment on the master branch.  I now see that it is in merge
>> conflict again, I plan to continue to keep the patch up-to-date.
>>
>> Erlon has been investigating issues with attaching snapshots. It
>> appears that this may be related to AppArmor running on the system where
>> the VM is running and attachment is being attempted.  I am hoping to
>> look into the other questions posed in the patch review in the next week
>> or two.
>>
>> The next step is to create a dependent patch, upon the snapshot patch,
>> to implement cloning.  I am planning to also undertake this work.  I am
>> assuming that getting the cloning support in place shouldn't be too
>> difficult once snapshots are working as it will be just a matter of
>> using the support from the remotefs driver.
>>
>> The last piece of work we have in flight is working on adding QoS
>> support to the NFS driver.  We have the following spec proposed to get
>> that work started: [3]
>>
>> So, we are in the process of bringing the NFS driver up to good
>> standing.  During this process we would greatly appreciate reviews and
>> input from those of you who have previously worked on the driver in
>> order to expedite integration of the necessary changes. I feel it is in
>> the best interest of the community to get the driver updated and
>> supported given that it is the 4th most used driver according to our
>> user survey.  I think it would not look good to our users if it were to
>> suddenly be removed.
>>
>> Thanks to all of your for your support in this effort!
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/102193.html 
>>
>>
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147186/
>>
>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/361456
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> IMO priority #1 is getting the NFS job passing consistently, who is 
> working on that? Last I checked it was failing a bunch because it was 
> running snapshot and clone tests, which obviously don't work since 
> that support isn't implemented in the driver. I think configuring 
> tempest in the devstack-plugin-nfs repo is fairly straightforward, 
> someone just needs to do it.
>
> But at least that gets you closer to a clean NFS job run which gets it 
> out of the experimental queue (possibly) and as a non-voting job in 
> Cinder so you can see if you're regressing anything (or if anything 
> else regresses it once you have clean CI runs).
>
> My 2 cents.
>
Matt,

This is good feedback.  I will put a story on our backlog on this for it 
and try to get that working ASAP.

Jay