On 09/20/2016 08:09 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
Does this compare to ViPR?
I am not a ViPR expert, you would have to poke John Mark Walker for that :)
My assumption is that they might want to use these modules (from tendryl down to
the ceph/gluster bits) to add support for ceph and gluster.
Regards,
Ric
On September 20, 2016 9:52:54 AM PDT, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/20/2016 10:23 AM, Gerard Braad wrote:
Hi Mrugesh, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Mrugesh Karnik
<mkarnik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd like to introduce the Tendrl project. Tendrl aims to build a
management interface for Ceph. We've pushed some documentation to the
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Mrugesh Karnik <mkarnik@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'd like to introduce the Tendrl project. Tendrl aims to build a
management interface for Gluster. We've pushed some documentation to
It might help to introduce Tendrl as the "Universal Storage Manager'"
with a possibility to either manage Ceph and/or Gluster. I understand
you want specific feedback, but a clear definition of the tool would
be helpful.
(Apologies for reposting my response - gmail injected html into what I thought
was a text reply and it bounced from ceph-devel.)
Hi Gerard,
I see the goal differently.
It is better to think of tendryl as one component of a whole management
application stack. At the bottom, we will have ceph specific components
(ceph-mgr) and gluster specific components (glusterd), as well as other local
storage/file system components like libstoragemgt and so on.
Tendryl is the next layer up from that, but it itself is meant to be consumed by
presentation layers. For a stand alone thing that we hope to use at Red Hat,
there will be a universal storage manager stack with everything I mentioned
above in it, as
well as the GUI code.
Other projects will hopefully find this useful enough and plug some or all of
the components into other management stacks.
From my point of view, the job is to try to provide as much as possible
re-usable components that will be generically interesting to a wide variety of
applications. It is definitely not about trying to make all storage stacks look
the same and force artificial new names/concepts/etc on the users. Of course,
any one application will tend to have a similar "skin" for UX elements to try
and make it consistent for users.
If we do it right, people passionate about Ceph but who don't care about Gluster
will be able to be avoid getting tied up in something out of their interest.
Same going the other way around for Gluster developers who don't care or know
about Ceph. Over time, this might extend to other storage types like Samba or
NFS Ganesha clusters,
etc.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
