On 03/02/2016 10:38 AM, Sam Yaple wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy Stanley <<mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>fu...@yuggoth.org<mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>> wrote: On 2016-02-03 14:32:36 +0000 (+0000), Sam Yaple wrote: [...] > Luckily, digging into it it appears cinder already has all the > infrastructure in place to handle what we had talked about in a > separate email thread Duncan. It is very possible Ekko can > leverage the existing features to do it's backup with no change > from Cinder. [...]
<devils_advocate>If Cinder's backup facilities already do most of what you want from it and there's only a little bit of development work required to add the missing feature, why jump to implementing this feature in a completely separate project instead rather than improving Cinder's existing solution so that people who have been using that can benefit directly?</devils_advocate> Backing up Cinder was never the initial goal, just a potential feature on the roadmap. Nova is the main goal. i'll extend fungi's question, are the backup framework/mechanisms common whether it be Nova or Cinder or anything else? or are they unique but only grouped together as a service because they backup something. it seems the problem is we've imagined the service as tackling a horizontal issue when really it is just a vertical story that appears across many silos. cheers, -- gord
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
