Hi Sage, On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I suspect there are some headaches with regard to the current structure of > radosgw-admin code that make wrapping it up in a library with python > bindings a painful exercise, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the > effort for just the realm management pieces? > > sage I see those concerns as more serious then mere headaches in the short to medium run. The issue is not how quickly wrappers can be developed, but how robust and serviceable long-running ceph-mgr daemons that have loaded an RGW instance in-process will be over the life of deployed L and M clusters, relative to some other organization of the same code. It's not as if I'm not a strong advocate for in-process organization in general, there already is a librgw that does NFS, and in the longer run, I'd like to see more integration along those lines (e.g., as we had at Cohort with pNFS data servers and OSDs). I think python bindings for RGW RADOS is a lot different, though, and I'm not sold yet that we really have to, to give the dashboard everything it aspires to. Is that crazy talk? Matt -- Matt Benjamin Red Hat, Inc. 315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage tel. 734-821-5101 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
