On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Caitlin Bestler < caitlin.best...@nexenta.com> wrote:
> I'm an architect at Nexenta. So not surprisingly I fully agree that > Gluster is a poor choice for storage in OpenStack. > Nexenta could easily apply GlusterFS as an aggregation/scale-out layer - in fact, one could argue they should. Your customers would benefit enormously, so no, I don't understand your statement at all. > However the real question is what criteria storage vendors should be > judged by the project. These should be > clearly stated and easily verified. Once compliance is dealt with, judging > the quality of specific solutions and > their suitability to specific needs is something that the end users should > do, not the openstack project. > Absolutely. > The Cinder project has set minimum standards for Volume Drivers for the > Havana release. Those standards should be applied without debating their > specifics for Gluster on the mailing list. > Are you suggesting that all storage backends are the same? Because that's not true. Data without silos is unique to the GlusterFS implementation. I'm not sure how I can discuss GlusterFS as a storage solution without also mentioniong that feature. > I would be in full agreement, however, that OpenStack should not > accommodate an API tailored to Gluster's unique architecture. > No one has mentioned that. We're talking about separating implementation from the API interface. -JM
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
