On 8/30/2016 10:50 AM, Jay S. Bryant wrote:
All,
I wanted to follow up on the e-mail thread [1] on Cloning support in the
NFS driver. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the plan for the
NFS driver going forward as I see it.
First, I am aware that the driver has gone quite some time without care
and feeding. For a number of reasons, the Public Cloud team within IBM
is currently dependent upon the NFS driver working properly for the
cloud environment we are building. Given our current dependence on the
driver we are planning on picking up the driver and maintaining it.
The first step in this process was getting the existing patch that adds
snapshot support for NFS [2] rebased. I did this work a couple of weeks
ago and also got all the unit tests working for the unit test
environment on the master branch. I now see that it is in merge
conflict again, I plan to continue to keep the patch up-to-date.
Erlon has been investigating issues with attaching snapshots. It
appears that this may be related to AppArmor running on the system where
the VM is running and attachment is being attempted. I am hoping to
look into the other questions posed in the patch review in the next week
or two.
The next step is to create a dependent patch, upon the snapshot patch,
to implement cloning. I am planning to also undertake this work. I am
assuming that getting the cloning support in place shouldn't be too
difficult once snapshots are working as it will be just a matter of
using the support from the remotefs driver.
The last piece of work we have in flight is working on adding QoS
support to the NFS driver. We have the following spec proposed to get
that work started: [3]
So, we are in the process of bringing the NFS driver up to good
standing. During this process we would greatly appreciate reviews and
input from those of you who have previously worked on the driver in
order to expedite integration of the necessary changes. I feel it is in
the best interest of the community to get the driver updated and
supported given that it is the 4th most used driver according to our
user survey. I think it would not look good to our users if it were to
suddenly be removed.
Thanks to all of your for your support in this effort!
Jay
[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/102193.html
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147186/
[3] https://review.openstack.org/361456
__________________________________________________________________________
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
IMO priority #1 is getting the NFS job passing consistently, who is
working on that? Last I checked it was failing a bunch because it was
running snapshot and clone tests, which obviously don't work since that
support isn't implemented in the driver. I think configuring tempest in
the devstack-plugin-nfs repo is fairly straightforward, someone just
needs to do it.
But at least that gets you closer to a clean NFS job run which gets it
out of the experimental queue (possibly) and as a non-voting job in
Cinder so you can see if you're regressing anything (or if anything else
regresses it once you have clean CI runs).
My 2 cents.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
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
