On 12/23/2013 08:48 AM, Mark Washenberger wrote:



On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 12/23/2013 05:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

        Flavio Percoco wrote:

            On 21/12/13 00:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:

                Cinder is for block storage. Images are just a bunch of
                blocks, and
                all the store drivers do is take a chunked stream of
                input blocks and
                store them to disk/swift/s3/rbd/toaster and stream those
                blocks back
                out again.

                So, perhaps the most appropriate place for this is in
                Cinder-land.


            This is an interesting suggestion.

            I wouldn't mind putting it there, although I still prefer it
            to be
            under glance for historical reasons and because Glance team
            knows that
            code.

            How would it work if this lib falls under Block Storage program?

            Should the glance team be added as core contributors of this
            project?
            or Just some of them interested in contributing / reviewing
            those
            patches?

            Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like John and Mark to weigh
            in too.


        Programs are a team of people on a specific mission. If the
        stores code
        is maintained by a completely separate group (glance devs), then it
        doesn't belong in the Block Storage program... unless the Cinder
        devs
        intend to adopt it over the long run (and therefore the
        contributors of
        the Block Storage program form a happy family rather than two
        separate
        groups).


    Understood. The reason I offered this up as a suggestion is that
    currently Cinder uses the Glance REST API to store and retrieve
    volume snapshots, and it would be more efficient to just give Cinder
    the ability to directly retrieve the blocks from one of the
    underlying store drivers (same goes for Nova's use of Glance).
    ...and, since the glance.store drivers are dealing with blocks, I
    thought it made more sense in Cinder.


True, Cinder and Nova should be talking more directly to the underlying
stores--however their direct interface should probably be through
glanceclient. (Glanceclient could evolve to use the glance.store code I
imagine.)

Hmm, that is a very interesting suggestion. glanceclient containing the store drivers. I like it. Will be a bit weird, though, having the glanceclient call the Glance API server to get the storage location details, which then calls the glanceclient code to store/retrieve the blocks :)

-jay

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to