fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[David Easter <deaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> 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.


The hope was that the majority of users would make their choices only in
the Wizard.  This would by default implement the most common model with
the highest chance of successfully deployment with minimal knowledge or
additional configuration.  The settings page is for folks that really know
what they're doing and want more control over the deployment.

So the settings page can be made more complex and complete, but let's
continue to keep the Wizard as simple as possible.  I recognize that
there's perhaps more options for storage than are displayed today, so we
may have to be creative about asking the minimum number of questions up
front.  Perhaps the Wizard itself needs to be tiered - I.e.

What kind of block storage will you be using?
	- filesystem on LVM
	- Ceph only
	- Cinder  [if selected, another two buttons pop up]
		- using LVM volumes over iSCSI?
		- using Ceph?

What kind of storage for Glance will you be using?
	- default (filesystem in multi-node, swift for HA)
	- Ceph

If we install Swift by default for customer object storage, and it's not
very common for customers to choose ceph rados-gw, perhaps we can continue
to leave that out of the Wizard for now and keep it in Settings.

-Dave Easter


On 12/18/13 9:10 AM, "Andrey Korolyov" <akorolev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.ht
>>ml
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>Post to     : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp