fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Andrey Korolyov <akorolev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/18/2013 09:07 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote:
> 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 :-)

No, type of underlying technology matters there. The terms are just
OpenStack-born abstractions which will not move user any closer to
understanding of real topology.

>>
>> > 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
> 
> 
>