Bug 1080384 - [RFE] Provide new Storage API without Master File-System persistency
Summary: [RFE] Provide new Storage API without Master File-System persistency
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: ovirt-engine
Classification: oVirt
Component: RFEs
Version: 3.5.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Federico Simoncelli
QA Contact: Raz Tamir
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1080379 1082502 1082503
Blocks: 1080372 1185830
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-03-25 10:22 UTC by Federico Simoncelli
Modified: 2019-04-28 13:27 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-06-20 13:30:20 UTC
oVirt Team: Storage
Embargoed:
ylavi: ovirt-future?
rule-engine: planning_ack?
rule-engine: devel_ack?
rule-engine: testing_ack?

Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.