Re: [Engine-devel] [vdsm] Storage Device Management in VDSM and oVirt
>> So although I believe that when we create a gluster volume or
an
>> ovirt storage domain then indeed we shouldn't need a lot of low
>> level commands, but it would appear to me that not allowing for
>> more control when needed is not going to work and that there are
>> enough use cases which do not involve a gluster volume nor a
>> storage domain to warrant this to be generic.
> I'm not against more control; I'm against uncontrollable API such as
> runThisLvmCommandAsRoot()
I can't argue with this.
I think what we're missing here though is something similar to setupNetworks which
would solve the problem. Not have 100 verbs (createPartition, createFS, createVG,
createLV, setupRaid,...) but rather have setupStorage (better name suggestions are
welcome) which would get the list of objects to use and the final configuration to setup.
This way we'd have a 2 stage process:
1. setupStorage (generic)
I was looking up on the VDSM archives and there are talks of using
libstoragemgmt (lsm)
under VDSM. I was wondering if the setupStorage would be something where
lsm would
be used to do the work, it seems fit for purpose here.