On 17/08/18 11:47 -0500, Jay S Bryant wrote:
On 8/17/2018 10:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Chris Dent <cdent...@anticdent.org> wrote:
One of the questions that has come up on the etherpad is about how
placement should be positioned, as a project, after the extraction.
The options are:
* A repo within the compute project
* Its own project, either:
* working towards being official and governed
* official and governed from the start
I would like to hear from the Cinder and Neutron teams, especially those who
were around when those compute sub-projects were split off into their own
projects. Did you feel that being independent of compute helped or hindered
you? And to those who are in those projects now, is there any sense that things
would be better if you were still part of compute?
Ed,
I started working with Cinder right after the split had taken place.
I have had several discussions as to how the split took place and why
over the years since.
In the case of Cinder we split because the pace at which things were
changing in the Cinder project had exceeded what could be handled by
the Nova team. Nova has always been a busy project and the changes
coming in for Nova Volume were getting lost in the larger Nova
picture. So, Nova Volume was broken out to become Cinder so that
people could focus on the storage aspect of things and get change
through more quickly.
So, I think, for the most part that it has been something that has
benefited the project. The exception would be all the challenges that
have come working cross project on changes that impact both Cinder and
Nova but that has improved over time. Given the good leadership I
envision for the Placement Service I think that is less of a concern.
For the placement service, I would expect that there will be a greater
rate of change once more projects are using it. This would also
support splitting the service out.
My opinion has been that Placement should have been separate from the start.
The longer we keep Placement inside of Nova, the more painful it will be to
extract, and hence the likelihood of that every happening is greatly diminished.
I do agree that pulling the service out sooner than later is probably best.
Has there been a discussion on record of how use of placement by
cinder would affect "standalone" cinder (or manila) initiatives where
there is a desire to be able to run cinder by itself (with no-auth) or
just with keystone (where OpenStack style multi-tenancy is desired)?
Tom Barron (tbarron)
-- Ed Leafe
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
