openstack team mailing list archive

["Thomas, Duncan" <duncan.thomas@xxxxxx>]

We've got volumes in production, and while I'd be more comfortable with option 2 for the reasons you list below, plus the fact that cinder is fundamentally new code with totally new HA and reliability work needing to be done (particularly for the API endpoint), it sounds like the majority is strongly favouring option 1...

--
Duncan Thomas
HP Cloud Services, Galway

From: openstack-bounces+duncan.thomas=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:openstack-bounces+duncan.thomas=hp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Flavia Missi
Sent: 11 July 2012 20:56
To: Renuka Apte
Cc: Openstack (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom

For me it's +1 to 1, but...

Here at Globo.com we're already deploying clouds based on openstack (not in production yet, we have dev and lab), and it's really painful when openstack just "forces" us to change, I mean, sysadmins are not that happy, so I think it's more polite if we warn them in Folsom, and remove everything next. Maybe this way nobody's going to "fear" the update. It also make us lose the chain of thought.. you're learning, and suddenly you have to change something for an update, and then you come back to what you we're doing...
--
Flavia