Re: [Engine-devel] [vdsm] RFC: New Storage API

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Litke" <agl(a)us.ibm.com&gt; > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Deepak C Shetty" <deepakcs(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt;, "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "VDSM Project > Development" <vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:49:31 PM > Subject: Re: [vdsm] RFC: New Storage API > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > > <snip> > > > > 1) Can you provide more info on why there is a exception for 'lvm > > > based > > > block domain'. Its not coming out clearly. > > File based domains are responsible for syncing up object > > manipulation (creation\deletion) > > The backend is responsible for making sure it all works either by > > having a single writer (NFS) or having it's own locking mechanism > > (gluster). > > In our LVM based domains VDSM is responsible for basic object > > manipulation. > > The current design uses an approach where there is a single host > > responsible for object creation\deleteion it is the > > SRM\SDM\SPM\S?M. > > If we ever find a way to make it fully clustered without a big hit > > in performance the S?M requirement will be removed form that type > > of domain. > > I would like to see us maintain a LOCALFS domain as well. For this, > we would > also need SRM, correct? No, why?