Bug 1043718

Summary:	[RFE][cinder]: Cinder management API to help setup/configure storage
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	RHOS Integration <rhos-integ>
Component:	RFEs	Assignee:	RHOS Maint <rhos-maint>
Status:	CLOSED UPSTREAM	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	unspecified	CC:	markmc, yeylon
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
URL:	https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/cinder-device-management-api
Whiteboard:	upstream_milestone_none upstream_status_unknown upstream_definition_obsolete
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-03-19 16:54:05 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description RHOS Integration 2013-12-17 00:50:15 UTC

Cloned from launchpad blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/cinder-device-management-api.

Description:

Cinder does a great job of letting an end user consume storage (create, delete, attach etc).  Something that's missing however is help for the storage-admin.  The philosophy currently is that it's up to the storage-admin to set everything up outside of OpenStack/Cinder and then "plug it in".

This blueprint proposes an admin oriented API specifically for things like configured raid, setting up pools etc.  Abstracting this and having a common API for it is a bit tricky, but I would propose we do something like report capabilities to determine what methods are valid for a specific backend device.

Given that this is geared toward an admin part of the thought here is that it doesn't have to have the same level of global abstraction.  That being said, it should still do something like provide one interface for devices that use RAID, another for those that don't etc.  

We'd need to gather some requirements and dig in to this a bit but it could be a very effective layer to add to Cinder and might actually be an ideal place for things like vendor extensions  and such.

Specification URL (additional information):

None