<tbarron> rraja: so are they running separate share services on different physical nodes pointing at the same cluster with the idea that either service can stand in for the other at any time?
<rraja> tbarron: I think so.
<tbarron> rraja: if they want an active-active share service then that is not currently supported in manila, it's not a backend-specific issue.
* absubram (~absubram@173.38.117.88) has joined
<tbarron> rraja: this is parallel to the state of cinder today
<tbarron> rraja: you can run share service active/passive with a solution like pacemaker though
<rraja> tbarron: hmmm. interesting. he said that he uses a similar configuration in Cinder. that's why I wanted to double check with you
<openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/puppet-manila: Enable release notes translation  https://review.openstack.org/383344
<tbarron> rraja: but I don't think that poses a problem for the assumption that only one manila service governs (does eviction, etc.) at any given time.
<rraja> tbarron: http://pastebin.com/tTHPrxvu
<tbarron> rraja: there *are* deployments out there that run cinder active-active, at their own risk, but upstream (and downstream at a place you and I know) it is not considered safe
<tbarron> rraja: looks like they play tricks in cinder to have multiple cinder volume servers answer on the message queue as the same "host"
<tbarron> rraja: there is ongoing work to make that kind of active-active cinder volume service safe but it has not yet landed