+1 for 1 On 11/07/12 8:26 AM, "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvana...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello Everyone, > >Now that the PPB has decided to promote Cinder to core for the Folsom >release, we need to decide what happens to the existing Nova Volume >code. As far as I can see it there are two basic strategies. I'm going >to give an overview of each here: > >Option 1 -- Remove Nova Volume >============================== > >Process >------- > * Remove all nova-volume code from the nova project > * Leave the existing nova-volume database upgrades and tables in > place for Folsom to allow for migration > * Provide a simple script in cinder to copy data from the nova > database to the cinder database (The schema for the tables in > cinder are equivalent to the current nova tables) > * Work with package maintainers to provide a package based upgrade > from nova-volume packages to cinder packages > * Remove the db tables immediately after Folsom > >Disadvantages >------------- > * Forces deployments to go through the process of migrating to cinder > if they want to use volumes in the Folsom release > >Option 2 -- Deprecate Nova Volume >================================= > >Process >------- > * Mark the nova-volume code deprecated but leave it in the project > for the folsom release > * Provide a migration path at folsom > * Backport bugfixes to nova-volume throughout the G-cycle > * Provide a second migration path at G > * Package maintainers can decide when to migrate to cinder > >Disadvantages >------------- > * Extra maintenance effort > * More confusion about storage in openstack > * More complicated upgrade paths need to be supported > >Personally I think Option 1 is a much more manageable strategy because >the volume code doesn't get a whole lot of attention. I want to keep >things simple and clean with one deployment strategy. My opinion is that >if we choose option 2 we will be sacrificing significant feature >development in G in order to continue to maintain nova-volume for another >release. > >But we really need to know if this is going to cause major pain to >existing >deployments out there. If it causes a bad experience for deployers we >need to take our medicine and go with option 2. Keep in mind that it >shouldn't make any difference to end users whether cinder or nova-volume >is being used. The current nova-client can use either one. > >Vish > > >_______________________________________________ >Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net >Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
