On 17/08/18 13:34 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote:
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)
A little bit. That would be one of the pieces that needs to be done if we were
to adopt it.
Just high level brainstorming, but I think we would need something like we have
now with using tooz where if it is configured for it, it will use etcd for
distributed locking. And for single node installs it just defaults to file
locks.
So I want to understand better what problems placement would solve and
whether those problems need to be solved even in the cinder/manila
standalone case. And if they do have to be solved in both cases, why
not use the same solution for both cases?
That *might* mean running the placement service even in the standalone
case if it's sufficiently lightweight and can be run without the rest
of nova. (Whether it's "under" nova umbrella doesn't matter for this
decoupling - nothing I'm saying here is intended to argue against e.g.
Mel's or Dan's points in this thread.)
-- Tom Barron (tbarron)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
