First, thanks for bringing this back to the list. I'm +1 on the technical approach.
A couple of thoughts though, just so that we make sure that we keep operating in the right manner as an Apache project: Let's be careful about declaring something a "decision" or that something was "determined" when it happened off-list. I think that, in the case below, you were really saying "we agreed to make this the proposal to the list", so no harm there. The last bit, about a meeting in person, is a little concerning to me though... It really needs to be open to anyone that might want to participate if at all possible (and this means folks that aren't physically there). Also, please be sure to bring back a summary of the discussions to the list, so that those not there have an opportunity to see what was discussed (and comment if they have comments). Think of the outcome of the discussions as "proposals" that will be brought back to the list. Sorry for sounding preachy, but it's important to keep remembering that the list is where decisions are made... and discussions shouldn't be closed to community members that may have geographic or temporal constraints. -chip On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:38:16PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > All, > > Edison Su, Min Chen, Animesh Chaturvedi, and myself met via teleconference on > 11 June 2013 @ 1:30 PM EDT. The goal of the meeting was determine the path > forward for merging the object_store branch by the 4.2 freeze date, 30 June > 2013. The conversation focused on the following topics: > > * Staging area mechanism > * Removing dependencies from the Storage to the Hypervisor layer > * Dependencies of other patches on object_store > * QA's desire to start testing the patch ASAP > > Min, Edison, and I agreed that the staging mechanism must age out files and > use a reference count to ensure that file in-use are not prematurely purged. > While we agree that some form of reservation system is required, Edison is > concerned that it will be too conservative and create bottlenecks. > > As we delved deeper into the subject of the storage to hypervisor > dependencies and the reservation mechanism, we determined that NFS storage > would still need to be the size of the secondary storage data set. Since the > hypervisor layer has not been completely fitted to the new storage layer, NFS > would be still required for a number of operations. Based on this > realization, we decided to de-scope the staging mechanism, and leave the 4.2 > object store functionality the same as 4.1. Therefore, NFS will remain the > secondary storage of record, and object storage will serve as > backup/multi-zone sync. In 4.3, we will fit the hypervisor layer for the new > storage layer which will allow object stores to server as secondary storage. > This work will include removing the storage to hypervisor dependencies. For > 4.2, Edison and Min have implemented the critical foundation necessary to > establish our next generation storage layer. There simply was not enough > time in this development cycle to make these changes and fit the hypervisor > layer. > > Due to the size of the patch, Animesh voiced QA's concerned regarding test > scope and impact. As such, we want to get the merge completed as soon as > possible to allow testing to begin. We discussed breaking up the patch, but > we could not devise a reasonable set of chunks there were both isolated and > significantly testable. Therefore, the patch can only be delivered in its > current state. We also walked through potential dependencies between the > storage framework changes and the solidfire branch. It was determined that > these two merges could occur independently. > > Finally, Animesh is going to setup a meeting at Citrix's Santa Clara office > on 26 June 2013 (the day after Collab ends) to discuss the path forward for > 4.3 and work through a high-level design/approach to fitting the hypervisor > layer to exploit the new storage capabilities. Details will be published to > the dev mailing list. > > Thanks, > -John
