On Tuesday 08 May 2012 10:45 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 05/07/2012 11:52 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 05/07/2012 07:06 PM, Shireesh Anjal wrote:
On Monday 07 May 2012 02:06 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
i can't see any justification for the 'gluster' prefix, as this is only additional /service/ provided by the project, and Gluster now is a part of the RHT. I believe there needs to be an indication which service this is about. If we will support provisioning other storage types which also have volumes then we'd want a way to differentiate. However, isn't there a way to simply add gluster as the name space? i.e. somthing like: /api/gluster/.../volumes ? (instead of 'cluster' as it is redundant imho)
A gluster volume is a cluster level entity, and hence "/api/.../clusters/{cluster:id}" seems like the right parent URI for the gluster volumes collection resource.
that's true for all other root entities as well: - VM is DC/cluster level - template is DC level - disk is storage domain level - network is DC level - hosts are cluster level (for now)
yet all of them have their own root collections as well.
I think glustervolumes seems safest/most reasonable for now (either at cluster level or root level as well)
does it make sense to also have gluster/bricks ? if so, I would nest it, i.e. gluster/{volumes|bricks|...}
bricks are host level, afair they are not used like this at all.
Though bricks reside inside a host, they are logically part of a gluster volume, and hence should be sub-resources of the volume. [/api/.../(gluster)volumes/{(gluster)volume:id}/bricks].
gluster/xxx is interesting as well, though not parallel to current virt mappings (storage_domains, disks, etc., being root collections)
Separate gluster namespace does sound interesting, however it may not be feasible because we want the gluster volumes to be a collection sub-resource of the existing "cluster" resource. It can work if all the existing resources relevant to gluster are made available under it, which includes clusters and hosts. e.g. /api/gluster/clusters/{cluster:id}/hosts/{host:id}/... /api/gluster/clusters/{cluster:id}/volumes/{volume:id}/... It'll be interesting to see what others think about this.
shireesh - any thoughts about this approach: - do you want volumes as root collection, or only under cluster
Root collection for gluster volumes could be useful, though not critically important right now. We can revisit this at a later point of time.
- if root, should these be glustervolumes like other root collection, or the under a gluster collection.
This depends on whether we decide to go with the gluster namespace or not.
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Thanks, Shireesh