> On Aug 4, 2015, at 01:42, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: > > I'm usually for abstraction layers, but they don't always pay off very well > due to catering to the lowest common denominator. > > Lets clearly define the problem space first. IFF the problem space can be > fully implemented using Tooz, then lets do that. Then the operator can > choose. If Tooz cant and wont handle the problem space, then we're trying to > fit a square peg in a round hole. >
+1 and specifically around tooz, it is narrow in comparison to the feature sets of some the DLMs (since it has to mostly-implement to the lowest common denominator, as abstraction layers do). Defining the space we are trying to target will let us make the informed decision on what we use. > Thanks, > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: Gorka Eguileor [gegui...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 1:43 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] A possible solution for HA > Active-Active > >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 10:22:42AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Flavio Percoco wrote: >>> [...] >>> So, to summarize, I love the effort behind this. But, as others have >>> mentioned, I'd like us to take a step back, run this accross teams and >>> come up with an opinonated solution that would work for everyone. >>> >>> Starting this discussion now would allow us to prepare enough material >>> to reach an agreement in Tokyo and work on a single solution for >>> Mikata. This sounds like a good topic for a cross-project session. >> >> +1 >> >> The last thing we want is to rush a solution that would only solve a >> particular project use case. Personally I'd like us to pick the simplest >> solution that can solve most of the use cases. Each of the solutions >> bring something to the table -- Zookeeper is mature, Consul is >> featureful, etcd is lean and simple... Let's not dive into the best >> solution but clearly define the problem space first. >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > I don't see those as different solutions from the point of view of > Cinder, they are different implementations to the same solution case, > using a DLM to lock resources. > > We keep circling back to the fancy names like moths to a flame, when we > are still discussing whether we need or want a DLM for the solution. I > think we should stop doing that, we need to decide on the solution from > an abstract point of view (like you say, define the problem space) and > not get caught up on discussions of which one of those is best. If we > end up deciding to use a DLM, which is unlikely, then we can look into > available drivers in Tooz and if we are not convinced with the ones we > have (Redis, ZooKeeper, etc.) then we discuss which one we should be > using instead and just add it to Tooz. > > Cheers, > Gorka. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
