My understanding was Cinder is needed to create/delete/manage etc. on volumes but I/O to the volumes is direct from the hypervisors. In theory you could lose your Cinder service and VMs would stay up.
On 25 Jul 2017 4:18 a.m., "Brady Deetz" <bde...@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for pointing to some documentation. I'd seen that and it is certainly an option. From my understanding, with a Cinder deployment, you'd have the same failure domains and similar performance characteristics to an oVirt + NFS + RBD deployment. This is acceptable. But, the dream I have in my head is where the RBD images are mounted and controlled on each hypervisor instead of a central storage authority like Cinder. Does that exist for anything or is this a fundamentally flawed idea? On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jason Dillaman <jdill...@redhat.com> wrote: > oVirt 3.6 added Cinder/RBD integration [1] and it looks like they are > currently working on integrating Cinder within a container to simplify > the integration [2]. > > [1] http://www.ovirt.org/develop/release-management/features/sto > rage/cinder-integration/ > [2] http://www.ovirt.org/develop/release-management/features/cin > derglance-docker-integration/ > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Brady Deetz <bde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Funny enough, I just had a call with Redhat where the OpenStack engineer > was > > voicing his frustration that there wasn't any movement on RBD for oVirt. > > This is important to me because I'm building out a user-facing private > cloud > > that just isn't going to be big enough to justify OpenStack and its > > administrative overhead. But, I already have 1.75PB (soon to be 2PB) of > > CephFS in production. So, it puts me in a really difficult design > position. > > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Dino Yancey <dino2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I was as much as told by Redhat in a sales call that they push Gluster > >> for oVirt/RHEV and Ceph for OpenStack, and don't have any plans to > >> change that in the short term. (note this was about a year ago, i > >> think - so this isn't super current information). > >> > >> I seem to recall the hangup was that oVirt had no orchestration > >> capability for RBD comparable to OpenStack, and that CephFS wasn't > >> (yet?) viable for use as a "POSIX filesystem" oVirt storage domain. > >> Personally, I feel like Redhat is worried about competing with > >> themselves with GlusterFS versus CephFS and is choosing to focus on > >> Gluster as a filesystem, and Ceph as everything minus the filesystem. > >> > >> Which is a shame, as I'm a fan of both Ceph and oVirt and would love > >> to use my existing RHEV infrastructure to bring Ceph into my > >> environment. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Brady Deetz <bde...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I haven't seen much talk about direct integration with oVirt. > Obviously > >> > it > >> > kind of comes down to oVirt being interested in participating. But, is > >> > the > >> > only hold-up getting development time toward an integration or is > there > >> > some > >> > kind of friction between the dev teams? > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > ceph-users mailing list > >> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ______________________________ > >> Dino Yancey > >> 2GNT.com Admin > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > > > -- > Jason > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
