Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of daan.hoogland@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130531053034.GD1356@cloud-2.local>
References: <CDCD870A.1C297%nitin.mehta@citrix.com>
	<CDCCDE35.180E5%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
	<CAGQtxvbTLmbZYqZF7nuniEQESRyA-1_VJ+FhbT5QJ8hjiPZ_ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<20CF38CB4385CE4D9D1558D52A0FC05802CDAB@SJCPEX01CL03.citrite.net>
	<CAGQtxvbcX4jpSjvUyj_5s8efOLgpy7mauWf9L8_t_6wocfzeZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130531053034.GD1356@cloud-2.local>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:59:57 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAGQtxvYm9xOnpjgrAex8cDdA-Vv-oMKL6KZ8=gm-4n1+w2s1EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?
From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51b206d4741e404ddff0013

--bcaec51b206d4741e404ddff0013
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Exactly,

I am not to familiar with cloudstack, yet.  I will study the present
procedure and do a suggestion in this thread.

Regards
Daan
On 31 May 2013 07:31, "Prasanna Santhanam" <tsp@apache.org> wrote:

> The current way of altering secondary storage is error prone. So +1
> to your maintenance proposal.
>
> We don't store any checksums for the images we backup to secondary
> storage in our db today.  So I'm interested to know how, when we bring
> up the new secondary storage we ensure consistency with previous
> (state of?) secondary storage that has been switched over.
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54:46PM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > Alez,
> >
> > This api call would then have to check if the new secondary storage
> > contains a compatible set of data in comparison to the prior one, would
> it?
> > Or do I misunderstand the procedure?
> > Regards,
> > On 30 May 2013 22:25, "Alex Huang" <Alex.Huang@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Daan,
> > >
> > > We have a procedure for doing that.  The problem in general has to do
> with
> > > the large capacity of the secondary storage so it's actually better to
> do
> > > migration of data outside of cloudstack with some manual process in
> stages
> > > and then just fix up the secondary storage in the database.
> > >
> > > I do agree having an API to do these fixups are better than direct
> > > database manipulations.
> > >
> > > --Alex
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:39 AM
> > > > To: dev
> > > > Subject: Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?
> > > >
> > > > Yes Chiradeep,
> > > >
> > > > That or maintenance on the secondary storage machine itself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> > > > Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can see a use for that: that the secondary storage becomes
> read-only
> > > > > during the maintenance (so no template creation/snapshots/etc).
> This
> > > > > allows for stuff like migration to new (file server) hardware.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/30/13 10:20 AM, "Nitin Mehta" <Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Not that I have heard of. You can at best replace the sec. storage
> > > > > >(there is a manual procedure for that), but since generally there
> is
> > > > > >a single sec. storage how can you implement maintenance mode ?
> > > > > >Can you please explain is your use case ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 30/05/13 7:32 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <
> DHoogland@schubergphilis.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>LS,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Has there ever been discussion about implementing maintenance
> mode
> > > > > >>for secondary storage? And are people thinking about this?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>thanks
> > > > > >>Daan Hoogland
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------
> Powered by BigRock.com
>
>

--bcaec51b206d4741e404ddff0013--