Open Stack

Hi John

Of the two ideas you describe regarding replication I believe both have
their unique merits and would allow for some fancy uses. The main
difference I see is in who can define what level of replications are
available, the consumer of the API, or the operator.
To me the second option is preferable, because the different drivers offer
different kinds of replication (for example replication vs. erasure codes)
and I am not sure a generic solution like the one suggested in the first
option could offer the flexibility to optimally use the capabilities of the
various drivers.
On the other hand I don't think the two options are necessarily mutually
exclusive, and maybe the first option could exist in addition and on top of
the second one.

At the same time I feel those are both advanced use-cases and the basic
replication needs for a single site are already handled quite satisfactory
by the current backend drivers. Therefore I believe the multi-site
replication suggested by Gustavo would be the one thing where Cinder could
really provide some added value on top of and independent of the backend
drivers.
Yay Pony!

Cheers,
David


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:06 AM, John Griffith <john.griffith at solidfire.com
> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:01 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) <gfa at zumbi.com.ar>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/26/2014 11:28 AM, John Griffith wrote:
>> > Hey OS-Operators,
>> >
>> > There are two features being worked on currently that I'd love to get
>> > some feedback on:
>> >
>> > 1. Replication
>>
>> i would like to Cinder to be able to replicate data between different
>> backend storages.
>>
>> sometimes your DR site does not have the same storage backend as your
>> primary site, this is common when you rent the DR site.
>> the usual workaround for this is restore from backup over the DR
>> storage, which is painful and slow.
>>
>> ideally i would have a Fast dedicated storage on primary site and a
>> bunch of lun(s) attached to a box with iscsi+lvm to provide volumes to
>> compute nodes.
>>
>> if i have storage from the same 'vendor' on both sites that's great!
>> cinder could offload data replication to vendor's appliance
>>
>> i know is a pony what i'm asking for, but i would really make a difference
>>
>>
>>
> ​Thanks Gustavo!
> ​
> ​I would really like that too, but the difficulties in doing that are
> exactly what I don't want to introduce, at least until we get a first pass
> with say "like storage systems" working.  Definitely understand the
> need/desire here but at the same time I'm also not a fan of implementing a
> feature that's just slightly more than unusable.
> ​
>
>> --
>> 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20140729/1d26d852/attachment.html>