Thanks for the write up Jay. This is useful. Added [Cinder] tag to subject line...
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:50:38AM -0500, Jay S. Bryant wrote: > All, > > I wanted to follow up on the e-mail thread [1] on Cloning support in > the NFS driver. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the plan > for the NFS driver going forward as I see it. > > First, I am aware that the driver has gone quite some time without > care and feeding. For a number of reasons, the Public Cloud team > within IBM is currently dependent upon the NFS driver working > properly for the cloud environment we are building. Given our > current dependence on the driver we are planning on picking up the > driver and maintaining it. > > The first step in this process was getting the existing patch that > adds snapshot support for NFS [2] rebased. I did this work a couple > of weeks ago and also got all the unit tests working for the unit > test environment on the master branch. I now see that it is in > merge conflict again, I plan to continue to keep the patch > up-to-date. > > Erlon has been investigating issues with attaching snapshots. It > appears that this may be related to AppArmor running on the system > where the VM is running and attachment is being attempted. I am > hoping to look into the other questions posed in the patch review in > the next week or two. > > The next step is to create a dependent patch, upon the snapshot > patch, to implement cloning. I am planning to also undertake this > work. I am assuming that getting the cloning support in place > shouldn't be too difficult once snapshots are working as it will be > just a matter of using the support from the remotefs driver. > > The last piece of work we have in flight is working on adding QoS > support to the NFS driver. We have the following spec proposed to > get that work started: [3] > > So, we are in the process of bringing the NFS driver up to good > standing. During this process we would greatly appreciate reviews > and input from those of you who have previously worked on the driver > in order to expedite integration of the necessary changes. I feel it > is in the best interest of the community to get the driver updated > and supported given that it is the 4th most used driver according to > our user survey. I think it would not look good to our users if it > were to suddenly be removed. > > Thanks to all of your for your support in this effort! > > Jay > > [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/102193.html > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147186/ > > [3] https://review.openstack.org/361456 > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
