openstack team mailing list archive
-
openstack team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #14454
Re: [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:26:56 -0700
Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Now that the PPB has decided to promote Cinder to core for the Folsom
> release, we need to decide what happens to the existing Nova Volume
> code. As far as I can see it there are two basic strategies. I'm going
> to give an overview of each here:
>
> Option 1 -- Remove Nova Volume
> ==============================
>
> Process
> -------
> * Remove all nova-volume code from the nova project
> * Leave the existing nova-volume database upgrades and tables in
> place for Folsom to allow for migration
> * Provide a simple script in cinder to copy data from the nova
> database to the cinder database (The schema for the tables in
> cinder are equivalent to the current nova tables)
> * Work with package maintainers to provide a package based upgrade
> from nova-volume packages to cinder packages
> * Remove the db tables immediately after Folsom
>
> Disadvantages
> -------------
> * Forces deployments to go through the process of migrating to cinder
> if they want to use volumes in the Folsom release
>
> Option 2 -- Deprecate Nova Volume
> =================================
>
> Process
> -------
> * Mark the nova-volume code deprecated but leave it in the project
> for the folsom release
> * Provide a migration path at folsom
> * Backport bugfixes to nova-volume throughout the G-cycle
> * Provide a second migration path at G
> * Package maintainers can decide when to migrate to cinder
>
> Disadvantages
> -------------
> * Extra maintenance effort
> * More confusion about storage in openstack
> * More complicated upgrade paths need to be supported
>
> Personally I think Option 1 is a much more manageable strategy because
> the volume code doesn't get a whole lot of attention. I want to keep
> things simple and clean with one deployment strategy. My opinion is
> that if we choose option 2 we will be sacrificing significant feature
> development in G in order to continue to maintain nova-volume for
> another release.
>
> But we really need to know if this is going to cause major pain to
> existing deployments out there. If it causes a bad experience for
> deployers we need to take our medicine and go with option 2. Keep in
> mind that it shouldn't make any difference to end users whether
> cinder or nova-volume is being used. The current nova-client can use
> either one.
>
> Vish
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Follow ups
References