On 05/30/2017 06:37 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
On 05/30/2017 03:24 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 05/27/2017 03:02 AM, Joe Julian wrote:
On 05/26/2017 11:38 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Joe Julian <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Forwarded for posterity and follow-up.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: GlusterFS removal from Openstack Cinder
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 21:07:27 +0000
From: Amye Scavarda <amye@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:amye@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Eric Harney <eharney@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:eharney@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joe
Julian <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vijay Bellur
<vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Amye Scavarda <amye@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:amye@xxxxxxxxxx>
Eric,
I'm sorry to hear this.
I'm reaching out internally (within Gluster CI team and CentOS CI which
supports Gluster) to get an idea of the level of effort we'll need to
provide to resolve this.
It'll take me a few days to get this, but this is on my radar. In the
meantime, is there somewhere I should be looking at for requirements to
meet this gateway?
Thanks!
-- amye
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 16:09 Joe Julian <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 05/05/2017 12:54 PM, Eric Harney wrote:
>> On 04/28/2017 12:41 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
>>> I learned, today, that GlusterFS was deprecated and removed from
>>> Cinder as one of our #gluster (freenode) users was attempting to
>>> upgrade openstack. I could find no rational nor discussion of that
>>> removal. Could you please educate me about that decision?
>>>
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> I can fill in on the rationale here.
>
> Keeping a driver in the Cinder tree requires running a CI
platform to
> test that driver and report results against all patchsets
submitted to
> Cinder. This is a fairly large burden, which we could not meet
once the
> Gluster Cinder driver was no longer an active development target at
Red Hat.
>
> This was communicated via a warning issued by the driver for anyone
> running the OpenStack Newton code, and via the Cinder release
notes for
> the Ocata release. (I can see in retrospect that this was
probably not
> communicated widely enough.)
>
> I apologize for not reaching out to the Gluster community about
this.
>
> If someone from the Gluster world is interested in bringing this
driver
> back, I can help coordinate there. But it will require someone
stepping
> in in a big way to maintain it.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
Ah, Red Hat's statement that the acquisition of InkTank was not an
abandonment of Gluster seems rather disingenuous now. I'm
disappointed.
I am a Red Hat employee working on gluster and I am happy with the kind of
investments the company did in GlusterFS. Still am. It is a pretty good
company and really open. I never had any trouble saying something the
management did is wrong when I strongly felt and they would give a decent
reason for their decision.
Happy to hear that. Still looks like meddling to an outsider. Not the
Gluster team's fault though (although more participation of the developers
in community meetings would probably help with that feeling of being
disconnected, in my own personal opinion).
As a community, each member needs to make sure that their specific use case
has the resources it needs to flourish. If some team cares about Gluster in
openstack, they should step forward and provide the engineering and hardware
resources needed to make it succeed.
Red Hat has and continues to pour resources into Gluster - Gluster is
thriving. We have loads of work going on with gluster in RHEV, Kubernetes,
NFS Ganesha and Samba.
What we are not doing and that has been clear for many years now is to invest
in Gluster in openstack.
Again, nobody communicated with either the Openstack nor the Gluster
communities about this, short of deprecation warnings which are not the most
effective way of reaching people (that may be wrong on the part of most users,
but unfortunately it's a reality). Red Hat wasn't interested in investing in
Gluster on Openstack anymore. That's fine. It's your money. As a community
leader, proponent, and champion, however, Red Hat should have at least
invested in finding an interested party to take over the effort - imho.
I think it is 100% disingenuous to position this as a surprise withdrawal of
Gluster from Red Hat from openstack. The position we have had with what we have
focused on with Gluster has been exceedingly clear for years.
As Eric pointed out, this was a warning in the Neutron code and was also in the
release notes for prior openstack releases.
Would you please start a thread on the gluster-users and gluster-devel
mailing lists and see if there's anyone willing to take ownership of
this. I'm certainly willing to participate as well but my $dayjob has
gone more kubernetes than openstack so I have only my limited free
time
that I can donate.
Do we know what would maintaining cinder as active entail? Did Eric get
back to any of you?
Haven't heard anything more, no.
Who in the community that is using gluster in openstack is willing to help
with their own time and resources to meet the openstack requirements?
Nobody knows. We have no idea what that entails. Can you help get that
question answered?
The way open source works is that when some gives notice in a release that they
are not maintaining a subsystem, that is an invitation for someone else to step
up. Sounds like an excellent job for the community to dig into.
As someone who runs the largest team of paid Gluster engineers in the world, my
job is to deliver engineering features in Red Hat Gluster Storage that meet our
business needs.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
