Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2015-03-18 11:25:37 -0700: > The aim is cloud storage that isn't affected by a host failure and major > players who deploy hyper-scaling clouds architect them to prevent that from > happening. To me that's cloud 101. Physical machine goes down, data > disappears, VM's using it fail and folks scratch their head and ask this > was in the cloud right? That's the indication of a service failure, not a > feature. >
Ceph provides this for cinder installations that use it. > I'm just a very big proponent of cloud arch that provides a seamless > abstraction between the service and the hardware. Ceph and DRDB are decent > enough. But tying data access to a single host by design is a mistake IMHO > so I'm asking why we do things the way we do and whether that's the way > it's always going to be. > Why do you say Ceph is "decent". It solves all your issues you're talking about, and does so on commodity hardware. > Of course this bumps into the question whether all apps hosted in the cloud > should be cloud aware or whether the cloud should have some tolerance for > legacy apps that are not written that way. > Using volumes is more expensive than using specialized scale-out storage, aka "cloud aware" storage. But finding and migrating to that scale-out storage takes time and has a cost too, so volumes have their place and always will. So, can you be more clear, what is it that you're suggesting isn't available now? __________________________________________________________________________ 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