Wido,

Are you sure on that? I know the libgfapi is in C. But I thought GlusterFS was 
now supported in both libvirt and qemu (1.0.1+, 1.3; respectively).

1.0.1: Dec 17 2012
Features:
Introduce virtlockd daemon (Daniel P. Berrange),
parallels: add disk and network device support (Dmitry Guryanov),
Add virDomainSendProcessSignal API (Daniel P. Berrange),
Introduce virDomainFSTrim() public API (Michal Privoznik),
add fuse support for libvirt lxc (Gao feng),
Add Gluster protocol as supported network disk backend (Harsh Prateek Bora),
various snapshot improvements (Peter Krempa, Eric Blake)
Thanks,

John

On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> On 07/15/2013 04:52 PM, John Skinner wrote:
>> Thanks, Wido.
>> 
>> I am not a programmer per se, but I am going to pull the code down and have 
>> a look to see if I can figure it out. I know some java guys so may be able 
>> to get some help on that end.
>> 
> 
> It won't be only Java code, but also C code to manage the GlusterFS storage 
> pool in libvirt: http://libvirt.org/storage.html
> 
> Currently GlusterFS isn't supported in libvirt as a storage pool, but the 
> CloudStack agent relies on that.
> 
> It might be possible to do without libvirt, but I'm not sure how that would 
> work out.
> 
> Ceph and RBD are my thing, I'm not a GlusterFS expert.
> 
> Wido
> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> On 07/15/2013 04:31 PM, John Skinner wrote:
>>>> Is there any way to use GlusterFS with the native QEMU libgfapi so we do 
>>>> not have to use Fuse to access the shares? Or are there any plans to build 
>>>> libgfapi QEMU support into CloudStack in the future?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> As for now there is no way to use libgfapi with Qemu/KVM in CloudStack, nor 
>>> are there any plans to implement this.
>>> 
>>> Patches are welcome though! Would be great to see this be written.
>>> 
>>> Wido
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to