incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:01:38 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:54 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/03/2013 07:04 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:31 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kannan@citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello All,
> >>>
> >>> I wish to propose Shared NFS Zone-wide (primary) Block Storage
> >>> CloudStack - I have added some details here
> >>>
> >>
> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Shared+NFS+Zo
> >> n
> >>> e-wide+(primary)+Block+Storage)  along with a JIRA ticket 724
> >>>
> >>> Please review and comment
> >>>
> >>> Hari Kannan
> >>
> >> So I have to say that I don't really understand the reason for wanting to
> >> invest the effort in doing this, and fear it will just result in a bad
> experience
> >> for the majority of folks who embark upon it.
> >> For a small setup this will work fine, but that small setup is also likely to
> only
> >> have a few clusters. I fear that in all but the most niche cases that this
> simply
> >> doesn't scale.
> >
> > It's not about shared nfs zone-wide primary storage, it is about: can we
> support zone-wide primary storage in cloudstack? Don't matter what kind of
> primary storage people want to use, it can be nfs(if they want, for whatever
> reason), or solidfire etc.
> > Currently, cloudstack just can't do that.
> >
> 
> Ok, clear :-)
> 
> But still, what would then be the purpose of having multiple clusters
> when they all share the same primary storage?
> 
> If that primary storage fails all your clusters go down with it.
> 
> Or am I thinking in the wrong way?
> 
> Isn't a cluster supposed to be an isolated "island" of machines which do
> not have any ties with other clusters other then being in the same pod/zone?
> 
> Wido
> 

Hey Wido,

Welcome back!

We've seen a cluster's management layer went bad but the storage did not.  I think if you
look at this feature as every primary storage is zone wide, your concern is justified.  However,
if you look at it as someone wants to be able to do root disk on clustered-based primary storage
but ability to move data disk around to different vms, this is makes a lot of sense to implement.
 I echo Edison's message.  It's about the enabling the capability and let others to worry
about usage and scaling. 

--Alex


Mime
View raw message