Open Stack

Please scan through this email to the statement:

      It's not exactly clear from the operator's perspective what the use cases are
      for using one or the other. This worries me on duplicated effort, two supported
      efforts we have to support once people deploy these different options,
      confusion on which to use, etc.

>From what I've been hearing at the defcore meeting, the *real* issue for DefCore is that the developers do not have a good set of use cases to drive their development *and* the current sets of tests test from a developer perspective whereas the tests should really be scenario tests which address the compatibility across clouds issue.

How would we engage to get the *right* interop questions asked rather than, or in addition to the current approach?

--Rocky

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Perez [mailto:thingee at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 6:10 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder][Glance] Fixing up Cinder store in Glance

On 23:04 Jul 02, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> Hi Cinder experts,
>
> Currently Glance has cinder backend but it is broken for a long time.
> I am proposing a glance-spec/patch to fix it by implementing the
> uploading/downloading images to/from cinder volumes.
>
> Glance-spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183363/
> Glance_store patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166414/
>
> This will be also useful for sharing volume data among tenants (similar
> use-case with public snapshots proposal discussed at the design summit).
>
>
> I need a review for them from cinder developers to make it progress.

So I tested out this glance_store patch, along with the Cinder patch [1] and
Glance patch [2] necessary to get things working.

This made us notice that Glance v2 + Cinder does not work [3].

Regardless, I had Patrick East who is working on the Image Caching [4] effort
in Cinder to help copying images faster explain what the difference between the
glance_store and his efforts were [5].

It's not exactly clear from the operator's perspective what the use cases are
for using one or the other. This worries me on duplicated effort, two supported
efforts we have to support once people deploy these different options,
confusion on which to use, etc.

I think we should decide on one approach and just use that one. Thoughts?


[1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201754/10
[2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186201/11
[3] - https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1478737
[4] - http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/cinder-specs/specs/liberty/image-volume-cache.html
[5] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-cinder/%23openstack-cinder.2015-07-28.log.html#t2015-07-28T00:45:14

--
Mike Perez

__________________________________________________________________________
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