4:03 p.m.
Hi,
I wanted to try ceph with oVirt and so I've installed an openstack
queens (current stable) environment containing cinder and keystone. But
when I tried to add the storage provider I ended up with 404 errors in
the engine log files.
They are because oVirt tries using the v2.0 API, and
http://HOST:5000/v2.0/tokens does not exist.
If I understand the release notes of openstack correctly the section
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/removed-as-of-queens
includes all v2.0 API being removed from keystone. So I'm asking whether
there is support for the v3 API in sight?
Regards
Bernhard
5:15 p.m.
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:54 PM Bernhard Dick <bernhard(a)bdick.de> wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to try ceph with oVirt and so I've installed an openstack
queens (current stable) environment containing cinder and keystone. But
when I tried to add the storage provider I ended up with 404 errors in
the engine log files.
They are because oVirt tries using the v2.0 API, and
http://HOST:5000/v2.0/tokens does not exist.
If I understand the release notes of openstack correctly the section
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/removed-as-of-queens
includes all v2.0 API being removed from keystone. So I'm asking whether
there is support for the v3 API in sight?
Daniel, do we have any support for v3?
Basically Ceph support via Cinder is not fully supported. Even if you get
the API to work, we don't support lot of operations like moving disks
between
Ceph and other storage types. This should be improved in 4.3, but we don't
have concrete plans yet.
You can also try other ways to integrate Ceph, like cephfs or Ceph iSCSI
gateway.
These options are fully supported as they use the existing file and block
based
capabilities.
Nir
6:20 p.m.
Am 24.05.2018 um 16:15 schrieb Nir Soffer:
[...]
Basically Ceph support via Cinder is not fully supported. Even if you get
the API to work, we don't support lot of operations like moving disks
between
Ceph and other storage types. This should be improved in 4.3, but we don't
have concrete plans yet.
k. It also seems not being possible to create a datacenter
that only
contains ceph storage, as this is of type "Volume" instead of "Data"
am
I correct?
You can also try other ways to integrate Ceph, like cephfs or Ceph
iSCSI
gateway.
These options are fully supported as they use the existing file and
block based
capabilities.
Using the iSCSI-Gateway from ceph also seemed an intresting
alternative
(as it also removes the need for an openstack environment just for
adding the ceph based storage part in my case). However at least for me
it seemed that the openstack integration had been pushed more as "the
way to go".
Regards
Bernhard
>
> Nir
7:20 p.m.
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:21 PM Bernhard Dick <bernhard(a)bdick.de> wrote:
Am 24.05.2018 um 16:15 schrieb Nir Soffer:
...
> You can also try other ways to integrate Ceph, like cephfs or
Ceph iSCSI
> gateway.
> These options are fully supported as they use the existing file and
> block based
> capabilities.
Using the iSCSI-Gateway from ceph also seemed an intresting alternative
(as it also removes the need for an openstack environment just for
adding the ceph based storage part in my case). However at least for me
it seemed that the openstack integration had been pushed more as "the
way to go".
We believe Cinder integration is the way to go, but we have a long way
to go :-)
For 4.2 you should consider the limitations of the current Cinder/Ceph
solution and consume Ceph in the way that works best for your use case.
Nir
2375
days inactive
2375
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Bernhard Dick -
Nir Soffer