cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS]S3-based secondary storage
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:10:21 GMT
Nfs as temporary staging( I call it cache storage) is not strictly required in the new storage
framework, but it's required in the current/old code. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:56 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS]S3-based secondary storage
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
> As I understand, 509 "backs" the NFS secondary storage using a S3
> compatible Object Store. I'm proposing that CS uses any S3 ased Object Store
> as the "main" secondary storage (I want to avoid using the word primary in
> this context..) - in that sense, it is similar to the Swift use case (which uses
> NFS as a temporary staging) - I don't know if that (NFS as a temporary staging
> is strictly required also? Plus, I want to have a single object store for the
> entire region, across multiple zones (it doesn't appear 509 can do that)
> 
> Simply put, 509 is about "backing NFS secondary storage with an S3-
> compatible object store" - my proposal is about having an S3 compatible
> object store as THE secondary storage
> 
> Hari
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:56 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]S3-based secondary storage
> 
> Isn't this a duplicate of CLOUDSTACK-509?  Can we close CLOUDSTACK-714?
> 
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kannan@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > 714

Mime
View raw message