Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Currently with composable roles and services, do we have the ability to deploy multiple of the same cinder backend ( for Dell SC and PS Series we had this capability in Mitaka and want to make sure we have the same capability Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
I think you can, you just need to declare the environment for each driver and that's all. Have you tested it?
Can you have multiple of the same backend? Like multiple PS series , Multiple SC series or multiple Ceph? And any combination of all https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309550
This one looks more like a question than a bug. Has this been tested, it sounds like it should work even upstream.
Created attachment 1275925 [details] dell multibackend
I have attached a sample environments file that worked prior to compo sable roles and services uses multiple Eqlx backends. Will the same work now?
Thanks, let's see if Alan can answer based on the recent fixes for those.
(In reply to Rajini Ram from comment #5) > I have attached a sample environments file that worked prior to compo sable > roles and services uses multiple Eqlx backends. Will the same work now? Yes, it will work the same (I verified). You can still use an environment file to declare multiple "user enabled" back ends. The syntax is unaffected by the transition to composable roles. Unless I misunderstand the initial concern, I think this can be closed WORKSFORME.
Thanks Alan
(In reply to Alan Bishop from comment #7) > (In reply to Rajini Ram from comment #5) > > I have attached a sample environments file that worked prior to compo sable > > roles and services uses multiple Eqlx backends. Will the same work now? > > Yes, it will work the same (I verified). You can still use an environment > file to declare multiple "user enabled" back ends. The syntax is unaffected > by the transition to composable roles. > > Unless I misunderstand the initial concern, I think this can be closed > WORKSFORME. Thans Alan, Closing accordingly. Sean