On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:51 AM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:50 AM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Preston L. Bannister < >> pres...@bannister.us> wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> As a (new) OpenStack developer, I just discovered the >>> "CINDER_SECURE_DELETE" option. >>> >> > OHHH... Most importantly, I almost forgot. Welcome!!! >
Thanks! (I think...) > It doesn't suck as bad as you might have thought or some of the other >> respondents on this thread seem to think. There's certainly room for >> improvement and growth but it hasn't been completely ignored on the Cinder >> side. >> > To be clear, I am fairly impressed with what has gone into OpenStack as a whole. Given the breadth, complexity, and growth ... not everything is going to be perfect (yet?). So ... not trying to disparage past work, but noting what does not seem right. (Also know I could easily be missing something.) > The debate about whether to wipe LV's pretty much massively depends on the >>> intelligence of the underlying store. If the lower level storage never >>> returns accidental information ... explicit zeroes are not needed. >>> >> Yes, that is pretty much the key. Does LVM let you read physical blocks that have never been written? Or zero out virgin segments on read? If not, then "dd" of zeroes is a way of doing the right thing (if *very* expensive).
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
