Bug 1080384

Summary:	[RFE] Provide new Storage API without Master File-System persistency
Product:	[oVirt] ovirt-engine	Reporter:	Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce>
Component:	RFEs	Assignee:	Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.5.0	CC:	acanan, amureini, bugs, lpeer, rbalakri, s.kieske, srevivo, ylavi
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---	Flags:	ylavi: ovirt-future? rule-engine: planning_ack? rule-engine: devel_ack? rule-engine: testing_ack?
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-06-20 13:30:20 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Storage	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1080379, 1082502, 1082503
Bug Blocks:	1080372, 1185830

Description Federico Simoncelli 2014-03-25 10:22:11 UTC

Description of problem:
We should provide a new API for SPM-like operations (createVolume, copyImage, deleteImage, etc.) that is not relying on the master file-system persistency (see RFE bug 1080379).

Among other things this also includes:

- splitting metadata and data operations
- spm removal (using a short-lived metadata lock)
- consolidate API providing fewer commands that can be combined together
- garbage collection for unfinished operations

Comment 1 Yaniv Lavi 2016-12-05 10:43:22 UTC

Do we still need this RFE, can we close it?

Comment 2 Allon Mureinik 2017-01-24 21:56:15 UTC

(In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #1)
> Do we still need this RFE, can we close it?
Leave it for now, thanks.

Comment 3 Yaniv Kaul 2017-06-20 09:17:49 UTC

(In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #2)
> (In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #1)
> > Do we still need this RFE, can we close it?
> Leave it for now, thanks.

What do we intend to use this RFE for?

Comment 4 Allon Mureinik 2017-06-20 13:30:20 UTC

(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #3)
> (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #1)
> > > Do we still need this RFE, can we close it?
> > Leave it for now, thanks.
> 
> What do we intend to use this RFE for?

The original idea was to track the SPDM work, but that's a mute point - let's track each verb we migrate individually.

Closing.