Open Stack

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Caitlin Bestler <
caitlin.bestler at nexenta.com> wrote:

>  I'm an architect at Nexenta. So not surprisingly I fully agree that
> Gluster is a poor choice for storage in OpenStack.
>

Nexenta could easily apply GlusterFS as an aggregation/scale-out layer  -
in fact, one could argue they should. Your customers would benefit
enormously, so no, I don't understand your statement at all.


> However the real question is what criteria storage vendors should be
> judged by the project. These should be
> clearly stated and easily verified. Once compliance is dealt with, judging
> the quality of specific solutions and
> their suitability to specific needs is something that the end users should
> do, not the openstack project.
>

Absolutely.


> The Cinder project has set minimum standards for Volume Drivers for the
> Havana release. Those standards should be applied without debating their
> specifics for Gluster on the mailing list.
>

Are you suggesting that all storage backends are the same? Because that's
not true. Data without silos is unique to the GlusterFS implementation. I'm
not sure how I can discuss GlusterFS as a storage solution without also
mentioniong that feature.


> I would be in full agreement, however, that OpenStack should not
> accommodate an API tailored to Gluster's unique architecture.
>

No one has mentioned that. We're talking about separating implementation
from the API interface.

-JM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20130910/c229eb3f/attachment.html>