[Openstack] Why GlusterFS should not be integrated with OpenStack

Eric Harney eharney at redhat.com
Tue Sep 10 15:11:51 UTC 2013

On 09/10/2013 10:42 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> 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.
> Storage vendors are used to dealing with certification processes. We
> know how to deal with rules that state your software must do X and Y by
> date Z.
> I would be in full agreement, however, that OpenStack should not
> accommodate an API tailored to Gluster's unique architecture.

I don't believe that is the plan here, generally speaking.  The Gluster
snapshot support (for attached volumes) involved API work for Cinder and
Nova but none of the code uses functionality which is specific to
GlusterFS.  It is currently only used by the Gluster Cinder driver but
the plan going forward, in my view, is to adopt the same functionality
for the Cinder NFS driver (which has same architecture as Gluster from
Cinder's current point-of-view) and also enable other drivers working
with the same mounted-remote-file-system model to gain snapshot support.

The snapshot functionality is currently GlusterFS-only because I had to
implement it somewhere first, and only had so much time during Havana. :)

As an example: a driver was submitted for XtreemFS during Havana and
rejected on the basis of not supporting snapshot functionality.  The
work done for GlusterFS in Havana enables that driver to reuse most of
the same infrastructure for snapshots and therefore have a path for
acceptance going forward, should the author continue pursuing integration.

> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack

More information about the Openstack mailing list