How to make Ceph enterprise ready » History » Version 1
Jessica Mack, 07/03/2015 07:11 PM
| 1 | 1 | Jessica Mack | h1. How to make Ceph enterprise ready |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | |||
| 3 | h3. Summary |
||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | Start discussion about steps to make Ceph more enterprise ready and usable for big production deployment e.g. in the telco market. Goal: define subtasks and steps for further development. |
||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | h3. Owners |
||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | * Danny Al-Gaaf (Deutsche Telekom) |
||
| 10 | * Name (Affiliation) |
||
| 11 | * Name |
||
| 12 | |||
| 13 | h3. Interested Parties |
||
| 14 | |||
| 15 | * Marc Koderer (Deutsche Telekom) |
||
| 16 | * Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) |
||
| 17 | * Name |
||
| 18 | |||
| 19 | h3. Current Status |
||
| 20 | |||
| 21 | h3. Detailed Description |
||
| 22 | |||
| 23 | Topics to be discuss: |
||
| 24 | * The current git repository includes code from several external projects. How can we handle these project version. Should we drop them from source and force the distros to provide these libs as a build dependency to Ceph to increase the maintainability and prevent outdated and no longer supported code in the dev tree? Currently existing projects: |
||
| 25 | ** libs3 (submodule) |
||
| 26 | ** civetweb (submodule) |
||
| 27 | ** jerasure/gf-complete (submodule) |
||
| 28 | ** rocksdb (submodule) |
||
| 29 | ** gtest (in-code tree, very bad!) |
||
| 30 | * RPM Packages provided via ftp: |
||
| 31 | ** include also *-devel and src rpms for provided libs like leveldb vs. don't include third party packages and point to the correct 'upstream/distro' repo? |
||
| 32 | ** how often are these packages synced on ftp from distro-upstream? |
||
| 33 | * How can we ensure that a user can always update a production cluster without down time? |
||
| 34 | ** API stability |
||
| 35 | ** Userspace/Kernel dependencies? |
||
| 36 | ** how to handle changes of on-disk format in the future? (see for example: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp....h=keyfilestore) |
||
| 37 | ** how to reduce down times |
||
| 38 | * Feature driven development vs. stability/performance |
||
| 39 | ** Which features are missing for enterprise use? |
||
| 40 | ** What tool are missing in the Ceph ecosystem? |
||
| 41 | * OpenStack ThirdParty Testing Support for Cinder/Glance/Manila ... |
||
| 42 | ** Inktank/RedHat should provide a test instance to run devstack against a Ceph cluster |
||
| 43 | ** provide testcases and report results |
||
| 44 | * ... more to be added |
||
| 45 | |||
| 46 | h3. Work items |
||
| 47 | |||
| 48 | h4. Coding tasks |
||
| 49 | |||
| 50 | # Task 1 |
||
| 51 | # Task 2 |
||
| 52 | # Task 3 |
||
| 53 | |||
| 54 | h4. Build / release tasks |
||
| 55 | |||
| 56 | # Task 1 |
||
| 57 | # Task 2 |
||
| 58 | # Task 3 |
||
| 59 | |||
| 60 | h4. Documentation tasks |
||
| 61 | |||
| 62 | # Task 1 |
||
| 63 | # Task 2 |
||
| 64 | # Task 3 |
||
| 65 | |||
| 66 | h4. Deprecation tasks |
||
| 67 | |||
| 68 | # Task 1 |
||
| 69 | # Task 2 |
||
| 70 | # Task 3 |