openstack team mailing list archive

[Jon Mittelhauser <Jon.Mittelhauser@xxxxxxxxxx>]

George,

I am relatively new to this mailing list so I assume that there is some history that is prompting the vehemence but I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish.

Vish sent out two proposed ways for dealing with the migration.  Most of the early voting (including mine) has been for option #1 (happy to explain why if desired) but it isn't like the discussion is over.  If you believe that option #2 is better, please explain why you believe that.  If you believe that there is a 3rd option, please explain it to us.

You are complaining without offering a counter proposal.  That is simply not effective and makes semi-neutral folks (like me) tend to discard your point of view (which I assume is not your objective).

-Jon

From: George Reese <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Brian Waldon <brian.waldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.waldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Openstack (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom

Well, I think overall OpenStack has done an absolute shit job of compatibility and I had hoped (and made a huge point of this at the OpenStack conference) Diablo -> Essex would be the end of this compatibility bullshit.

But the attitudes in this thread and with respect to the whole Cinder question in general suggest to me that this cavalier attitude towards forward migration hasn't changed.

So you can kiss my ass.

-George

On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:

We actually care a hell of a lot about compatibility. We also recognize there are times when we have to sacrifice compatibility so we can move forward at a reasonable pace.

If you think we are handling anything the wrong way, we would love to hear your suggestions. If you just want to make comments like this, I would suggest you keep them to yourself.

Have a great day!
Brian Waldon

On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, George Reese wrote:

This community just doesn't give a rat's ass about compatibility, does it?

-George

On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya 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<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

--
George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com<http://www.enstratus.com/>
To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


--
George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com<http://www.enstratus.com/>
To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese