Open Stack

On 17/08/18 13:34 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>
>> Has there been a discussion on record of how use of placement by cinder
>> would affect "standalone" cinder (or manila) initiatives where there is a
>> desire to be able to run cinder by itself (with no-auth) or just with
>> keystone (where OpenStack style multi-tenancy is desired)?
>>
>> Tom Barron (tbarron)
>>
>
>A little bit. That would be one of the pieces that needs to be done if we were
>to adopt it.
>
>Just high level brainstorming, but I think we would need something like we have
>now with using tooz where if it is configured for it, it will use etcd for
>distributed locking. And for single node installs it just defaults to file
>locks.

So I want to understand better what problems placement would solve and 
whether those problems need to be solved even in the cinder/manila 
standalone case.  And if they do have to be solved in both cases, why 
not use the same solution for both cases?

That *might* mean running the placement service even in the standalone 
case if it's sufficiently lightweight and can be run without the rest 
of nova.  (Whether it's "under" nova umbrella doesn't matter for this 
decoupling - nothing I'm saying here is intended to argue against e.g. 
Mel's or Dan's points in this thread.)

-- Tom Barron (tbarron)


>
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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