openstack team mailing list archive

[Narayan Desai <narayan.desai@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Adam Gandelman <adamg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 09:22 AM, Narayan Desai wrote:
>>
>> I also vote for option 1, but the migration path really needs to be
>> solid and well documented.
>>   -nld
>
>
> I feel the same.  I think documented and tested migration paths are of
> utmost importance here.  Unlike the Keystone -> Keystone Light migration,
> people are actually using Nova volume in production right now.   There were
> some facilities added in the later Keystone to help with migration, but
> AFAICS Keystone adoption at the time wasn't to the point where the migration
> path really mattered--not enough to have any bugs being rasied, at least.

Thinking more about this, it seems to me that we need to have pretty
detailed doc about this. Particularly since cinder isn't in wide use
yet, I think that a lot of people are running weird configurations for
volume storage. I suspect that having an automagic upgrade path won't
be feasible in these cases, but there needs to be enough doc (and
tools) to get old volumes migrated in some fashion.
 -nld