[openstack-dev] [Cinder] Cinder Mitaka Midcycle Summary
jordan.pittier at scality.com
Tue Feb 2 21:35:51 UTC 2016
Thanks a lot for this summary. I enjoyed the reading.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>
> War and Peace
> Notes from the Cinder Mitaka Midcycle Sprint
> January 26-29
> Etherpads from discussions:
> * https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cinder-midcycle-day-1
> * https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cinder-midcycle-day-2
> * https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cinder-midcycle-day-3
> * https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cinder-midcycle-day-4
> *Topics Covered*
> In no particular order...
> Disable Old Volume Types
> There was a request from an end user to have a mechanism to disable
> a volume type as part of a workflow for progressing from a beta to
> production state.
> Of what was known of the request, there was some confusion as to
> whether the desired use case couldn't be met with the existing
> functionality. It was decided nothing would be done for this until
> more input is receieved explaining what is needed and why it cannot
> be done as it is today.
> User Provided Encryption Keys for Volume Encryption
> The question was raised as to whether we want to allow user specified
> keys. Google has something today where this key can be passed in
> Some concern with doing this, both from a security and amount of work
> perspective. It was ultimately agreed this was a better fit for a
> cross project discussion.
> Adding a Common cinder.conf Setting for Suppressing SSL Warnings
> Log files get a TON of warnings when using a driver that uses the
> requests library internally for communication and you do not have
> a signed valid certificate. Some drivers have gotten around this
> by implementing their own settings for disabling these warnings.
> The question was raised that although not all drivers use requests,
> and therefore are not affected by this, should we still have a common
> config setting to disable these warnings for those drivers that do use
> Different approaches to disabling this will be explored. As long as
> it is clear what the option does, we were not opposed to this.
> Nested Quotas
> The current nested quota enforcement is badly broken. There are many
> scenarios the just do not work as expected. There is also some
> confusion around how nested quotas should work. Things like setting
> -1 for a child quota do not work as expected and things are not
> properly enforced during volume creation.
> Glance has also started to look at implementing nested quota support
> based on Cinder's implementation, so we don't want to cause broken
> implementation in Cinder to be propogated to other projects.
> Ryan McNair is working with folks on other projects to make find
> a better solution and to work through our current issues. This will
> be an ongoing effort for now.
> The Future of CLI for python-cinderclient
> A cross project spec has been approved to work toward removing
> individual project CLIs to center on the one common osc CLI. We
> discussed the feasibility of deprecating the cinder CLI in favor
> of focusing all CLI work on osc.
> There is also concern about delays getting new functionality
> deployed. First we need to make server side API changes, then get
> them added to the client library, then get them added to osc.
> There is not feature parity between the cinder and osc CLI's at the
> moment for cinder functionality. This needs to be addressed first
> before we can consider removing or deprecating anything in the cinder
> client CLI. Once we have the same level of functionality with both,
> we can then decide at what point to only add new CLI commands to osc
> and start deprecating the cinder CLI.
> Ivan and Ryan will look in to how to implement osc plugins.
> We will also look in to using cliff and other osc patterns to see if
> we can bring the existing cinder client implementation closer to the
> osc implementation to make the switch over smoother.
> API Microversions
> Scott gave an update on the microversion work.
> Cinder patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224910
> cinderclient patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248163/
> spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223803/
> Test cases: https://github.com/scottdangelo/TestCinderAPImicroversions
> Ben brought up the need to have a new unique URL endpoint for
> this to get around some backward compatibility problems. This new URL
> would be made v3 even though it will initially be the same as v2.
> We would like to get this in soon so it has some runtime. There were
> a lot of work items identified though that should get done before we
> land. Scott is going to continue working through these issues.
> Async User Reporting
> Alex Meade and Sheel have been working on ways to report back better
> information for async operations.
> We will store data in the database rather than the originally
> investigated Zaqar approach. There was general agreement that this
> work should move forward and would be beneficial.
> SDS Driver Proposals
> We've had a few requests in the past to add drivers for other SDS
> platforms such as VipR, FalconStore, etc. We've rejected this on the
> basis that they duplicate much of what Cinder is already doing so it
> could potentially leverage Cinder without providing any benefit to
> the project as a whole. It was also brought up in the past that third
> party CI should then be run against all supported backends under this
> other SDS to validate it.
> It was brought up the IBM SVC driver could be classified as an SDS.
> Jay gave an overview of the system to explain how it works. The
> difference there is that although SVC can be configured to manage
> other storage, it is the only API for managing one of the IBM storage
> systems and is not being marketed as an SDS solution.
> In the end we decided that although our concerns for blocking these
> in the past are still valid, we will allow them in now if that is
> what end users would like to have. They must still have third party
> CI, but we will not require CI to be run against every supported
> backend under the SDS. We will assume the SDS product does enough
> of its own testing to ensure a level of quality and really is then
> outside the domain of cinder.
> Status of Third Party CI
> There are several CI's that have been very unreliable or completely
> absent. We have not been strongly enforcing our policies for this.
> We will need to start disabling CI's and removing drivers for any
> third party drivers that are not in compliance. For now this will
> need to be a manual task of identifying and enforcing this.
> Some scripts were done in the past to help get some of this data to
> help with enforcement. There are also a few dashboards that show some
> useful, if not complete, data. These scripts will be expanded to try
> to get a more automatic process in place for out of compliance
> Volume multiattach support has been in Cinder for a couple releases
> now, but more work is needed to make it usable with Nova. There
> have been some changes towards this, but it likely will not get
> resolved in Mitaka. This is ongoing and is actively being worked on
> by ildikov and hemna.
> Consistency Groups
> CG APIs are disabled by default by policy. It was brought up whether
> this should now change. Since not every backend support CGs it was
> decided we will not change this.
> There's no force flag for CG snapshots unlike individial volume APIs.
> This led to a broader discussion on the need for the force flag in
> the first place. General agreement was it should probably just be
> Quotas with CG snapshots - is a new quota needed? Determined existing
> volume quotas are all that's needed and nothing special for CGs.
> Extend Volume
> Code landed in os-brick to do extend volume. This is too late for
> making it into Nova though. We should be able to get extend volume
> in Newton.
> Cinder-Volume A/A HA
> Gorka has been working through a series of patches to support this.
> Several API race conditions have been fixed for this that will be
> good to have even if the full solution doesn't land in time for this
> Plan is to get as much useful stuff merged in Mitaka, with the likely
> final implementation landing in Newton.
> Versioned Objects and Rolling Upgrades
> Michal has several patches out there to implement this. It has been
> tested under at least one scenario and appears to be working. We want
> to get these landed as much as needed to support this and get some
> runtime and testing in on it.
> Will look at adding a grenade test to get coverage.
> Scalable Backup
> The proposal is to break out the backup service to possibly have
> multiple backup services running, allowing some parallelism and
> distribution of load. Most backups are CPU bound and not I/O bound
> so having the ability to move this off of one host could allow
> for more scale.
> There was some concern that this would not work with devices that
> don't use local device paths (CEPH, Sheepdog). These have been
> tested and appear to work fine.
> Cinder without Nova
> It was discussed in Tokyo about the desire to extend Cinder to be
> useable outside of an OpenStack cloud as a more general SDS
> solution. John was able to do some testing using the minimum
> pieces of Cinder, Keystone, RabbitMQ, and MySQL.
> This is just a first exploratory step. Additional work will need
> to be done to make this a more attractive solution.
> As a tangent, the idea was raised that after some of the major
> changes are completed for versioned objects and HA, we should
> take a step back and review the Cinder architecture to see if
> things have changed enough that we should think about
> rearchitecting some things.
> A large part of the third day was spent talking about replication.
> There was a lot of concern about the planned v2 implementation.
> Most vendors that have added support struggled with some of the
> same questions. The final v2 spec also grew beyond its initial
> plan of being a crawl, walk, run approach and added too many
> things that complicated the API and implementation.
> There was general agreement that things didn't end up quite like
> we wanted them to be for this go around. Rather than releasing
> this v2 and potentially needing to turn around and start working
> on a v3, it was decided that we would course correct and change
> what we are doing for replication in Mitaka.
> There is some (OK, a lot) of concern about doing this so far in
> to the development cycle, especially as some vendors have already
> landed patches for supporting v2 and there are several in-flight.
> We agreed to accept this risk and go for a simpler case that
> clearly addresses one use case, rather than keeping what we had
> that unclearly addressed several use cases, maybe. For now we
> would just address the case of configuring one or more targets
> for a given backend. If there is a planned or unplanned outage
> for that primary backend, the administrator has the ability to
> fail over resources to one of the secondary locations.
> This is not a solution for ping ponging back and forth and
> keeping your instances up and running and happy. This is a
> solution for when something is on fire and you need to move to
> a safe location.
> Folks were getting hung up on the naming, as replication means
> different things to different people. To get around this, we
> used code names to talk about different options. The spec for
> cheesecake has much more detail about the proposed solution
> and valid use case for this iteration of our support.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev