Re: RexRay follow up


I see where you’re coming from Clint, but in this case I agree with Bassam. To follow on to what he said, I’m very concerned that this would become yet another place where the interface to storage would need to be discussed, and I think that’s a really bad move right now.


As a community, we already have at least three different regular storage meetings: the CNCF storage WG, the k8s storage-sig and CSI. You have to track at least those to maintain even a basic idea of what’s going on. And if you really want to be involved with k8s, there’s already a lot more than that to deal with. As the other orchestrators become more CSI aware, there will likely be storage meetings for each of them as well.


And the line between the orchestrators and the CSI moves all the time. For about a year we’ve been talking about snapshots in k8s, and in just the past week there’s been discussion about moving that into CSI itself. If we make that move it isn’t just done on paper, it has a material change on interfaces and how it needs to be implemented.


Adding another thing in the mix in-between makes the lines more blurry than they already are, and an already difficult problem much worse.


For this reason, I think the CSI needs to re-consider its “spec only” stance and provide some basic enablement as well as mechanisms that make it easy for different people to experiment in and around it instead.

Please, no more! :)



Technical Director @ NetApp

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.