Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] allow a ranking mechanism for glance-api to order image locations

[Steve Lewis]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jake Yip  wrote:

>
> I am wondering anyone else have solved this before? I would like to hear
> your opinions on how we can achieve this, and whether ranking it by
> metadata is the way to go.
>

I spoke with an operator in Vancouver (Spring 2015 Summit) who wanted
similar functionality for his environment (relying on Ceph and Swift
storage with a multi-region cloud) and I believe this solution would
partially-satisfy his use case and could help close the functional gap.

Thanks for bringing it up. I'm interested in helping see this delivered.

-- 
SteveL
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] allow a ranking mechanism for glance-api to order image locations

[Flavio Percoco]

On 14/01/16 11:07 +1100, Jake Yip wrote:

Hi all,

I've recently ran across a constraint in glance-api while working with image
locations. In essence, there is no way to customize ordering of image-locations
other than the default location strategies, namely location_order and
store_type [0]. It seems like a more generic method of ordering image locations
is needed, IMHO.

Some background - We are in a multi-cell environment and each cell has it's own
glance-api server. All images are stored in a global swift cluster. We would
like glance to be able to fetch images from a local store, so that we can do
COW for backends like RBD.

Unfortunately, none of the current location strategies works for us, as we
might have multiple cells sharing the same backend. I've opened a bug /
wishlist describing this issue [1]. I have also implemented code that allows us
to achieve that based on image location metadata.

I am wondering anyone else have solved this before? I would like to hear your
opinions on how we can achieve this, and whether ranking it by metadata is the
way to go.

The current wishlist is now tracked as a spec-lite. Is this ok?


Yes, this sounds like a good example of a spec lite. We'll now proceed to review
it, triage it and give a go if everything looks fine.

As far as the feature goes, I think it is fine to add other location strategies.
I'll follow-up on the bug.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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-dev] [glance] allow a ranking mechanism for glance-api to order image locations

[Jake Yip]

Hi all,

I've recently ran across a constraint in glance-api while working with
image locations. In essence, there is no way to customize ordering of
image-locations other than the default location strategies, namely
location_order and store_type [0]. It seems like a more generic method of
ordering image locations is needed, IMHO.

Some background - We are in a multi-cell environment and each cell has it's
own glance-api server. All images are stored in a global swift cluster. We
would like glance to be able to fetch images from a local store, so that we
can do COW for backends like RBD.

Unfortunately, none of the current location strategies works for us, as we
might have multiple cells sharing the same backend. I've opened a bug /
wishlist describing this issue [1]. I have also implemented code that
allows us to achieve that based on image location metadata.

I am wondering anyone else have solved this before? I would like to hear
your opinions on how we can achieve this, and whether ranking it by
metadata is the way to go.

The current wishlist is now tracked as a spec-lite. Is this ok?

Regards,
Jake

[0]
http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/config-reference/content/section_glance-api.conf.html
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1528453
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] allow a ranking mechanism for glance-api to order image locations

[Fei Long Wang]

Hi Jake,

Thanks for raising this topic. I'm really interested in it. I reviewed 
most of the locations patches of Glance, so drop my 2 cents about this. 
So firstly, I think it's a valid user case. As for the implementation, I 
think a spec-lite is enough, given it's just a driver for current 
location strategy. I haven't seen your code, so I'm not sure if your 
implementation is ok for upstreaming. But I would assume your code is a 
driver under 
https://github.com/openstack/glance/tree/master/glance/common/location_strategy 
and personally, I think the metadata of location is right way since the 
location URL can't provide clear and enough information for the ranking. 
We can discuss more on #openstack-glance channel. Cheers.


On 14/01/16 13:07, Jake Yip wrote:

Hi all,

I've recently ran across a constraint in glance-api while working with 
image locations. In essence, there is no way to customize ordering of 
image-locations other than the default location strategies, namely 
location_order and store_type [0]. It seems like a more generic method 
of ordering image locations is needed, IMHO.


Some background - We are in a multi-cell environment and each cell has 
it's own glance-api server. All images are stored in a global swift 
cluster. We would like glance to be able to fetch images from a local 
store, so that we can do COW for backends like RBD.


Unfortunately, none of the current location strategies works for us, 
as we might have multiple cells sharing the same backend. I've opened 
a bug / wishlist describing this issue [1]. I have also implemented 
code that allows us to achieve that based on image location metadata.


I am wondering anyone else have solved this before? I would like to 
hear your opinions on how we can achieve this, and whether ranking it 
by metadata is the way to go.


The current wishlist is now tracked as a spec-lite. Is this ok?

Regards,
Jake

[0] 
http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/config-reference/content/section_glance-api.conf.html

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1528453


__
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


--
Cheers & Best regards,
Fei Long Wang (王飞龙)
--
Senior Cloud Software Engineer
Tel: +64-48032246
Email: flw...@catalyst.net.nz
Catalyst IT Limited
Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis Street, Wellington
--

__
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