Thanks Jesse,
But about sheepdog, I saw a presenation of sheepdog and openstack
integration. In this presentation, it is claimed that sheepdog is
unified storage backend for swift, cinder and glance.
Check the attachment.
See:
https://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-hong-kong-2013/sessio
Hey Abel,
We would be in favor of this as well. So much so that we would definitely
be willing to put some resources on it. I'll reach out once we're back from
Paris.
Great suggestion,
Craig
On Oct 31, 2014 2:52 PM, "Abel Lopez" wrote:
> I've added the same blueprint to cinder/glance/etc. yes,
+1 also interested.
Thanks & Regards,
--
Accela Zhao
On 11/6/14, 8:35 PM, "Hossein Zabolzadeh" wrote:
>Hello there,
>I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or
>GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project
>itself, but want to know what is the r
On 6 November 2014 13:01, Hossein Zabolzadeh wrote:
> Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference
> between them...
> - Which one is better support in openstack?
> - Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack
> storage controllers(cinder, swift and g
And the video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMLDCBPUnJo
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Li, Chengyuan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Please get slides of our presentation “Seamless Migration from
> Nova-network to Neutron in eBay Production” from below link. Thanks!
>
>
> https://www.openstack.or
Hi,
Please get slides of our presentation "Seamless Migration from Nova-network to
Neutron in eBay Production" from below link. Thanks!
https://www.openstack.org/assets/presentation-media/Seamless-migration-from-Nova-network-to-Neutron-in-eBay-production-20141104.pptx
Regards,
CY.
__
On 07/11/14 01:42, Michael Dorman wrote:
> This same thing came up at the mid-cycle Ops meet up at RAX in August.
> There wasn’t much action that came from it, but we did set up a new
> org in GitHub for collecting this type of common stuff:
> https://github.com/osops
>
Excellent! Wish I'd notice
Yes! I would like these things to live under a official openstack program
so there is a clear collaboration point. This should not be stack forge it
should be openstack and we should aim for incubation and recognition of
contributions.
On 06/11/2014 1:42 PM, "David Moreau Simard" wrote:
> As far
On 6 November 2014 at 12:30:00, Michael Chapman (wop...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi Operators!
I felt like OpenStack didn't have enough projects, so here's another one.
During the summit I feel like I'm repeatedly having the same conversations with
different groups about bespoke approaches to operati
It's likely premature for it to have shown up under OpenStack, but that's for a
different thread!
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 16:33, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> Except in the case of TripleO which is available as an official
> OpenStack project.
___
OpenStack-o
openstack-operators-requ...@lists.openstack.org wrote:
Hi Operators!
I felt like OpenStack didn't have enough projects, so here's another one.
During the summit I feel like I'm repeatedly having the same conversations
with different groups about bespoke approaches to operational tasks, and
wrap
Excerpts from Michael Chapman's message of 2014-11-06 12:20:52 +0100:
> Hi Operators!
>
> I felt like OpenStack didn't have enough projects, so here's another one.
>
> During the summit I feel like I'm repeatedly having the same conversations
> with different groups about bespoke approaches to op
Thanks for your opinion. But I am looking for the real difference
between them...
- Which one is better support in openstack?
- Which one provides better unified storage backend for all openstack
storage controllers(cinder, swift and glance)?
On 11/6/14, Adrián Norte Fernández wrote:
> I persona
I personally find Ceph to be the most mature project and more easily
scalable.
El 06/11/2014 13:40, "Hossein Zabolzadeh" escribió:
> Hello there,
> I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or
> GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project
> itself, but
As far as monitoring is concerned, we've just had a session at the Ops summit -
etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-summit-ops-monitoring
Definitely lots of various initiatives regarding monitoring scripts/tools that
could benefit from being centralized.. at a quick glance:
- https:/
This same thing came up at the mid-cycle Ops meet up at RAX in August. There
wasn't much action that came from it, but we did set up a new org in GitHub for
collecting this type of common stuff: https://github.com/osops
The ops tools session going on now ( http://sched.co/1nfHWk3 ;
https://et
Earlier today Jay Pipes mentioned that he had some rsyslog config examples for
Doing Useful Things with openstack logs. This would be another useful place to
store such things.
Another thing worth tracking would be one off ops-task tooling. Those little
shell scripts we've all written to true u
Hello there,
I am doubted to select which storage backend(sheepdog, Ceph or
GlusterFS) for my openstack production env. I am aware of each project
itself, but want to know what is the real difference between them when
used as glance, swift and cinder storage backend?
Any help appreciated.
Thanks in
Hi Operators!
I felt like OpenStack didn't have enough projects, so here's another one.
During the summit I feel like I'm repeatedly having the same conversations
with different groups about bespoke approaches to operational tasks, and
wrapping these in a project might be a way to promote collabo
19 matches
Mail list logo
