cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2013 20:06:46 GMT
if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform swiftstack:
http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/


On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:

> Edison,
> 
> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use in order to
store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not
a viable workaround.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>> To: Edison Su
>>> Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
in
>>> 4.2?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help
the
>>> integration?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
>>>>> store changes?
>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or
not, as
>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just because it
>> 
>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
>> But who will make the decision?
>> 
>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it
>>> wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack
>>> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of
>>> that feature.
>>> 
>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to
>>> do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary, I'd say that
>>> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I don't want to see
>>> that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it.
>>> 
>>> -chip
> 


Mime
View raw message