On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 04:21:16PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > The NFS, GlusterFS, SMBFS, and Quobyte libvirt volume drivers are all very > similar. > > I want to extract a common base class that abstracts some of the common code > and then let the sub-classes provide overrides where necessary. > > As part of this, I'm wondering if we could just have a single > 'mount_point_base' config option rather than one per backend like we have > today: > > nfs_mount_point_base > glusterfs_mount_point_base > smbfs_mount_point_base > quobyte_mount_point_base > > With libvirt you can only have one of these drivers configured per compute > host right? So it seems to make sense that we could have one option used > for all 4 different driver implementations and reduce some of the config > option noise.
Doesn't cinder support multiple different backends to be used ? I was always under the belief that it did, and thus Nova had to be capable of using any of its volume drivers concurrently. > Are there any concerns with this? Not a concern, but since we removed the 'volume_drivers' config parameter, we're now free to re-arrange the code too. I'd like use to create a subdir nova/virt/libvirt/volume and create one file in that subdir per driver that we have. > Is a blueprint needed for this refactor? Not from my POV. We've just done a huge libvirt driver refactor by adding the Guest.py module without any blueprint. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __________________________________________________________________________ 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
