Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E83FC360 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34479 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2013 18:02:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 34428 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2013 18:02:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 34236 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jul 2013 18:02:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:02:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Edison.su@citrix.com designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.165.176.63] (HELO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM) (66.165.176.63) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:02:32 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,752,1367971200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="37676570" Received: from sjcpex01cl02.citrite.net ([10.216.14.144]) by FTLPIPO02.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jul 2013 18:02:10 +0000 Received: from SJCPEX01CL01.citrite.net ([169.254.1.152]) by SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net ([10.216.14.144]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.004; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:02:09 -0700 From: Edison Su To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" Subject: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Thread-Topic: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Thread-Index: Ac6KKjxDdpcMjuZYS+uVQxxAbd80qw== Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: <77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4@SJCPEX01CL01.citrite.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.216.48.12] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --_004_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_" --_000_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "I see prodded a facility to convert NFS secondary storage to object storag= e as an enhancement where the lack of a migration path is a blocking defect= ." I have different view on this item, regarding the priority. At one hand, we= have almost all of cloudstack users are using NFS as secondary storage, if= there is no way to upgrade to S3, then all of existing CloudStack deployme= nt can't upgrade to use your Basho CS, or Amazon S3. On the other hand, the= re is tiny users are using S3/Swift(S3 in 4.0/4.1 even can't backup snapsho= t, and nobody reports the issue before, so I assume there is zero cloudstac= k users are using S3 in 4.0/4.1). Then fix the upgrade path for S3 from 4.0 to 4.2 has little gain for the w= hole CloudStack users(as the user base is almost zero), while fix the upgra= de path from NFS to S3 will benefit the whole community a lot. So, which one has the higher priority? Isn't obvious? From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:15 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Min Chen Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Edison, Unfortunately, given the time remaining the 4.2 release cycle, the most tha= t can likely be done is to remove these global options. Due to the massive= amount of cruft that will be created when these global options are removed= , I am disappointed that a more a comprehensive code removal was not perfor= med as part of this effort. I have opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3861 to addres= s the duplicate functionality and task CLOUDSTACK-3862 to address removal o= f the dead code post 4.2.0. I completely disagree regarding the migration path issue. As we have discu= ssed in the past on the list, we have no way of knowing what features are i= n the use across the community. Therefore, migration paths for feature rep= lacements must always be provided in order to avoid a scenario where users = are stranded. 4.1.0 users employing NFS secondary storage upgrading to 4.2= .0 will suffer no loss of functionality. However, 4.1.0 users using either= S3 or Swift-backed secondary storage will lose capability. I see prodded = a facility to convert NFS secondary storage to object storage as an enhance= ment where the lack of a migration path is a blocking defect. As such, I h= ave opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3360 [2] to address this issue. Thanks, -John [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3861 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3862 [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3860 On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Edison Su > wrote: -----Original Message----- From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Min Chen Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Edison, The old S3 and Swift-backed secondary storage can still be enabled (via glo= bal options) and configured along side the new object store feature. Is there = a Do you mean "s3.enabled" and "swift.enabled" in global configuration? This = two options should be removed, and they won't have any effect any more. reason why they are still present? I would have expected the code to have been removed. The second question is how users utilizing those features will be migrated = to the new object storage approach. Haven't have time to take a look at upgrade issue yet. Should be able to up= grade from existing S3/Swift into 4.2, but I doubt are there any users are = using S3/Swift in CloudStack? We'd better put our energy on how to upgrade existing NFS secondary storage= to S3/Swift, which are the most users of CloudStack using. Thanks, -John On Jul 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Edison Su > wrote: -----Original Message----- From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:06 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Edison Su; Min Chen Subject: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features All, I have noticed during testing that the old S3 and Swift-backed secondary What you mean the old s3/swift secondary? Upgrading the old s3 from 4.1 to 4.2? storage features are still available in the 4.2.0. It seems to me that they should be disabled (given the late date), and removed completely post 4.2.0 release. Also, what is the migration/upgrade strategy for customers using these features? Thanks, -John --_000_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

“I see prodded a facility to convert NFS secon= dary storage to object storage as an enhancement where the lack of a migrat= ion path is a blocking defect.”

I have different view on = this item, regarding the priority. At one hand, we have almost all of cloud= stack users are using NFS as secondary storage, if there is no way to upgrade to S3, then all of existing CloudStack deployment can= ’t upgrade to use your Basho CS, or Amazon S3. On the other hand, the= re is tiny users are using S3/Swift(S3 in 4.0/4.1 even can’t backup s= napshot, and nobody reports the issue before, so I assume there is zero cloudstack users are using S3 in 4.0/4.1).<= /o:p>

Then fix the upgrade path=   for S3 from 4.0 to 4.2 has little gain for the whole CloudStack user= s(as the user base is almost zero), while fix the upgrade path from NFS to S3 will benefit the whole community a lot.

So, which one has the hig= her priority? Isn’t obvious?

 <= /p>

From: John Bur= well [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:15 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Min Chen
Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features<= o:p>

 

Edison,

 

Unfortunately, given the time remaining the 4.2 rele= ase cycle, the most that can likely be done is to remove these global optio= ns.  Due to the massive amount of cruft that will be created when thes= e global options are removed, I am disappointed that a more a comprehensive code removal was not performed as part of this= effort.  I have opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3861 to address the duplicat= e functionality and task CLOUDSTACK-3862 to address removal of the dead cod= e post 4.2.0.

 

I completely disagree regarding the migration path i= ssue.  As we have discussed in the past on the list, we have no way of= knowing what features are in the use across the community.  Therefore= , migration paths for feature replacements must always be provided in order to avoid a scenario where users are stranded. =  4.1.0 users employing NFS secondary storage upgrading to 4.2.0 will s= uffer no loss of functionality.  However, 4.1.0 users using either S3 = or Swift-backed secondary storage will lose capability.  I see prodded a facility to convert NFS secondary storag= e to object storage as an enhancement where the lack of a migration path is= a blocking defect.  As such, I have opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3360 [2]= to address this issue.

 

Thanks,

-John

 

 

On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:






-----Original Message-----
From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com<= /a>]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<= /a>
Cc: Min Chen
Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features

Edison,

The old S3 and Swift-backed secondary storage can still be enabled (via glo= bal
options) and configured along side the new object store feature.  Is t= here a


Do you mean "s3.enabled" and "swift.enabled" in global = configuration? This two options should be removed, and they won't have any = effect any more.


reason why they are still present?  I would hav= e expected the code to have
been removed.

The second question is how users utilizing those features will be migrated = to
the new object storage approach.


Haven't have time to take a look at upgrade issue yet. Should be able to up= grade from existing S3/Swift into 4.2, but I doubt are there any users are = using S3/Swift in CloudStack?
We'd better put our energy on how to upgrade existing NFS secondary storage= to S3/Swift, which are the most users of CloudStack using.



Thanks,
-John

On Jul 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:





-----Original Message-----
From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com<= /a>]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:06 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<= /a>
Cc: Edison Su; Min Chen
Subject: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features

All,

I have noticed during testing that the old S3 and Swift-backed
secondary



What you mean the old s3/swift secondary? Upgrading the old s3 from 4.1

to 4.2?



storage features are still available in the 4.2.0. &= nbsp;It seems to me
that they should be disabled (given the late date), and removed
completely post 4.2.0 release.  Also, what is the migration/upgrade strategy for customers using these features?

Thanks,
-John

 

 

--_000_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_-- --_004_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"; size=506; creation-date="Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:49:56 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:49:56 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NCkNvbW1lbnQ6IEdQR1Rvb2xzIC0gaHR0cDov L2dwZ3Rvb2xzLm9yZw0KDQppUUVjQkFFQkFnQUdCUUpSOG9SV0FBb0pFT1hkczNsbFNJRlRJYjRJ QUtxQjhKN1JOcFNlMlVvWGtLb2xRREJODQpBdzRBWmFLVG9TamVGQjR5V1dIWFFhVXlReThocHU4 aEU2cXV1V2c3cDRHeUVBcUhXSmpHSEV4L2tSUVVVU01aDQpJclJ6SE5MbXpmME5EYy9PTkowSlN0 Q1hWRXdNYXRBZmRZU0p2VDRyOTJucjJSdlAzYWlxRmJITXVDY05OWkRNDQpIdG1YL3JRaC81eGdE QVoza1RqOTQvU3lpZVJBcW1EaVVGbUNQemluWVYvM1dCTkxvWXI1L1R2aWRrb3g5cHhEDQpZOU1R Y3BscDBSNnlhUzlkNHYrcmN3bTJQZG8xaVJtZ3c4WGhvbXR4Qm5HVFhXUTJORnNFc2IvOUxsUkFY VjRNDQoydC9vN0tkdTNMK2g0QnhpN0J0VDl2cENSakJaaWFCeWxXMXI2NnUwOVM5UTdoczlZVHJ2 ZlVJbDV3ZjJYajg9DQo9WjRTdw0KLS0tLS1FTkQgUEdQIFNJR05BVFVSRS0tLS0tDQo= --_004_77B337AF224FD84CBF8401947098DD8708B3C4SJCPEX01CL01citri_--