fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/18/2013 06:27 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2013 7:09 AM, "Mike Scherbakov" <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > Do I miss anything in the above?
>
> No.
>
> > Do we plan to have it documented anywhere so it is easy to 
> understand for the user, who might be not very well experienced with 
> all cinder, lvm, ephemeral, ceph, swift, rbd and other terms?
>
> It is documented to some extent in settings descriptions and a bit 
> more in the Reference Architecture. Maybe it's worth adding more 
> details to the Storage Architecture section? Should there be a link to 
> that section somewhere in the UI?
I suggest to simplify the terminology, skip all 
Ceph/Swift/Cinder/Volume/Image/Glance terms and use Ephemeral storage / 
Block storage / Object storage / File-level storage instead.
By the way, Openstack ops docs uses these terms 
http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-ops/content/storage_decision.html
That would make us closer to community :-)
> > What does mean checkbox "Cinder LVM over iSCSI for volumes" - what 
> are the use cases for it?
>
> It is the default Cinder option from your list. The primary use case 
> is where the cloud administrator doesn't need additional redundancy 
> provided by Ceph and needs to maximize data density for volumes.
>
> > Do we need cinder role applied to any servers if we use Ceph everywhere?
>
> No.
>
> > Will RadosGW conflict with Swift in HA mode?
>
> Yes. This is reflected in the RadosGW setting description.
>
> > Did we create bugs about unneeded LVMs for Glance, /var/lib/nova if 
> we use Ceph? Or we still need LVMs?
>
> Our discussionon this yesterday was a bit inconclusive. I'm in favor 
> of keeping the LVMs in 4.0 do as not to destabilize the release, and 
> removing them in 4.1. If there are no objections I will create bugs 
> targeted for 4.1.
>
> > Are there any other combinations which may lead to side effects? Can 
> we have all of them verified?
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> > How many of the things above are covered by system tests, and how 
> many still need to be covered?
> > Do we have multiple backend support in Cinder?
>
> No. Andrew started this work but it was held back by the splinters bug.
>
> > The whole UX with only checkboxes doesn't look like ideal solution 
> to me. What do you think folks, should we file a blueprint and 
> implement better UX for it in future versions?
>
> TBH I would have a single checkbox in the wizard that would enable all 
> Ceph options. Not sure what we can do about the checkboxes in the 
> settings tab though.
In UI we can let the customer to choose which backend (LVM, default / 
Ceph / Swift, if applicable / anything-new-goes-here ) to use for which 
storage type ( Ephemeral / Block / Object / File-level ), as a drop-down 
lists.
> -Dmitry


--
Best regards,
Bogdan Dobrelya,
Researcher TechLead, Mirantis, Inc.
+38 (066) 051 07 53
Skype bogdando_at_yahoo.com
Irc #bogdando
38, Lenina ave.
Kharkov, Ukraine
www.mirantis.com
www.mirantis.ru
bdobrelia@xxxxxxxxxxxx