cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
Subject Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:34:30 GMT
So, let's see if I currently follow the requirements:

* Augment volume snapshots for managed storage to conditionally export data
to NFS. The current process of taking a snapshot on the SAN is fine, but
we'd like the option to export the data to NFS, as well.

Questions:

Once the data has been exported to NFS, do we keep the SAN snapshot or
delete it?

If we are deleting the SAN snapshot, then why don't we just copy the VHD
from primary to secondary the way we do today for non-managed (i.e.
traditional) storage? Why create a SAN snapshot in that scenario? Perhaps
to have the SSVM mount and perform the VHD copy to secondary storage
instead of a XenServer host?

Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, to me a backup is when you copy data from one storage system to
another (regardless of features, if any, to restore the data in the
future). A snapshot is a point-in-time view of the data of a volume and
it's stored on the same storage system as the volume.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion@cloudops.com> wrote:

> That's fun to see that discussion happening. I 100% agree with Paul's
> points of view. VolumeSnapshot are not a backup, but I do consider them as
> a safety vest against Primary Storage failure, because failure append :-( .
>
> The current proposal around snapshots that reside on the primary storage or
> snapshots that end in the Secondary Storage  is not to address any kind of
> backups requirement because a snapshot is not a backup, event an extracted
> VM snapshot.
>
> The main idea, and again this is for managed storage;
>
> 1. StorageSnapshotAPI: Provide storage side snapshot capability for fast
> response time that support rollback to previous timestamp, create new
> volume and maybe create template.
>     not required to be a new API if the work is already done, I think this
> is a different behaviors than the user expectation of a volume-snapshot.
> 2. VolumeSnapshotAPI: Provide current cloudstack behavior that create an
> extraction of a volume into SecondaryStorage which can be reuse to create a
> new volume into another Primary Storage. This type of snapshot is a slow
> job since yes it would have to copy the full volume size on the Secondary
> storage.
>
>
> PL
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think I share you view on the 'Ideal world'. Backup (via Volume
> > Snapshots) is a huge bottleneck in Cloudstack. This is amplified
> especially
> > when you have a object storage as your secondary storage because it
> > requires two copies (one to an NFS staging area and from there to object
> > storage). And not to mention that all these copies are consuming
> hypervisor
> > resources. Xenserver's Dom0 is also a huge bottleneck as all the Network
> > and I/O flow through it. So our intention of proposing the "Storage
> > Snapshots" is to give a better way of achiving snapshots while still
> > keeping the original definition of volume snpashots (ie upload to sec
> > storage).
> >
> > But as Erik pointed out volume snapshots are not backups. They don't work
> > form multi-disk LVM volume groups and dynamic disks. I am all in for a
> > better backup solution which handles these use cases and utilizes the
> > storage's advanced features.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In the beginning... there were CloudStack snapshots and they were
> > actually
> > > volume snapshots not hypervisor point-in-time snapshots.
> > > Then VM snapshots were created (which are point-in-time hypervisor
> > > snapshots) and we started referring to the original snapshots as volume
> > > snapshots.
> > >
> > > CloudStack does not offer 'backups', but many people use volume
> snapshots
> > > as backups. However you can't in-place restore volume snapshots and if
> > you
> > > have a VM with multiple volumes, the volume snapshots must be done in
> > > series, meaning that the state across all of the volumes is unlikely to
> > be
> > > consistent.
> > >
> > > 'Actual Backups' would enable all of the restore options which users
> > might
> > > expect as well options as to where they might be stored. In my ideal
> > world
> > > they would also be able to leverage back-end hardware (such as
> Solidfire,
> > > NetApp etc :) ) and software such as Veeam, Commvault etc to accelerate
> > the
> > > process.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com>
> > > Paul Angus
> > > VP Technology ,  ShapeBlue
> > > d:  *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540*
> > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540>  |  m:
> > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784>
> > > e:  *paul.angus@shapeblue.com | t: @cloudyangus*
> > > <paul.angus@shapeblue.com%20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus>  |  w:
> > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com>
> > > a:  53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
> > > Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> > > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated
> > under
> > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> > > company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> > > Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic
> of
> > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue
> > is
> > > a registered trademark.
> > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
> intended
> > > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views
> > or
> > > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily
> > > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not
> > the
> > > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action
> based
> > > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the
> > sender
> > > if you believe you have received this email in error.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Syed Mushtaq [mailto:syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:58 PM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > When you say actual backups, how would it be different from the Volume
> > > Snapshots that exist currently. My understanding is that Backups end up
> > in
> > > Sec Storage whereas Snapshots are just a point-in-time state of your
> > volume
> > > which can be restored back correct?
> > >
> > > -Syed
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Syed,
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it, the SolidFire plugin will export the snapshot to
> > > > secondary storage if the user requests a template from the snapshot
> or
> > > > wants to download the snapshot from the cloud. This is a good,
> > > > pragmatic approach and yes Mike the SolidFire storage is super
> > > > reliable and snapshots on SolidFire arrays take up next to no space.
> > > > BUT I think that we are talking about a more general purpose API, and
> > > > other storage systems may not be as awesome as Mike's. That's my
> > > > concern. Also, the time to transfer for say 1TB to move from primary
> > > > to sec storage and then create a VM template out of it may be too
> long
> > > for users.
> > > >
> > > > @Mike I don’t think 'we' use the term volume snapshot for backup,
> it's
> > > > just that users want to do backups and a volume snapshot is the only
> > > > type of snapshot that copies the disk elsewhere and can be scheduled.
> > > >
> > > > I'm 'pondering' the implications of enabling actual backups (through
> > > > recognised backup providers) and the user requirements around them
> > > > (particularly restoration use cases) as a separate thread of work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com> Paul Angus VP
> Technology
> > > > , ShapeBlue
> > > > d: *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540*
> > > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> | m:
> > > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784>
> > > > e: *paul.angus@shapeblue.com | t: @cloudyangus*
> > > > <paul.angus@shapeblue.com%20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus> | w:
> > > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com>
> > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK Shape Blue Ltd
> > > > is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services
> India
> > > > LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license
> > > > from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
> > > > incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue
> > > > Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> > > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
> > > > ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
> > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
> > > > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
> addressed.
> > > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
> > > > not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related
> > > > companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you
> > > > must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or
> show
> > > > it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have
> > received
> > > this email in error.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Syed Mushtaq [mailto:syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: 05 February 2016 15:31
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
> > > >
> > > > I think the terminology confusion comes from AWS where they do EBS
> > > > snapshots backed up to S3 and CloudStack sort of followed that. And
> as
> > > > an end user who is oblivious to the internals of my provider, my
> > > > expectation would be something similar to what AWS as that is my
> > > > biggest reference point.
> > > >
> > > > To your point Mike, I agree that a Primary Storage failure on
> > > > SolidFire is unlikely, there are other motivations for us to push
> data
> > > > to secondary storage. Primary storage (atleast for us) costs around 3
> > > > times as much as secondary storage and snapshots on primary storage
> > > > are rarely used (especially for some of our customers who do daily
> > > backups).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Some of the weirdness is around terminology.
> > > > >
> > > > > For most systems I've worked on, a snapshot and a backup are two
> > > > > completely different things (but CloudStack has traditionally used
> > > > > the term "volume snapshot" to mean backup).
> > > > >
> > > > > I will put in a SolidFire "plug" here and say, though, that if your
> > > > > primary storage is running on SolidFire that it is unlikely you'll
> > > > > encounter an issue where your primary storage goes offline (and
> > > > > you'll even maintain your performance guarantees during failure
> > > > > scenarios and upgrades, as well). That being the case, it is less
> > > > > useful to require a backup to Swift (but it's perfectly OK if
> that's
> > > > > what we want to do
> > > > here).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Syed Mushtaq
> > > > > <syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe with the current implementation of Snapshots on managed
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > (SolidFire) the snapshots are never exported to the secondary
> > > storage.
> > > > > > While this solves the problem of having snapshots taking forever
> > > > > > to get to sec storage, this leaves us with a
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > liability if our primary storage goes down. We see snapshots as
> > > > > > our recovery path because we store them in Swift which is
> reliable
> > > > > > and resilient to failures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With Storage snpashots our goal is to have Volume snapshots
> always
> > > > > > backed up to secondary storage and Storage Snapshots stay on the
> > > > > > primary
> > > > > storage.
> > > > > > A provider could potentially mix both these and solve the problem
> > > > > > that you mentioned where you want to meet user's expectation of a
> > > > > > snapshot (ie backup to sec storage) while having an ability to
> > > > > > utilize faster sanpshots (i.e. on the device)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this clarifies things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -Syed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Paul Angus
> > > > > > <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > HI guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could someone point me to the Jira bug of FS for the
> > > > > > > SAN-snapshot
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > > in 4.6 which is mentioned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From my discussions with users and operators around snapshots
> > > > > > > I'd make
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > following observations:
> > > > > > > a. 'users' use snapshots as backups (both long-term and short
> > > > > > > term)
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the expectation that they can use them for recovery if
> required.
> > > > > > > b. operators fall back to snapshots if something has gone wrong
> > > > > > > with primary storage.
> > > > > > > c. users sometimes want to be able to export snapshots as well
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > create
> > > > > > > new VMs from their snapshots
> > > > > > > d. snapshots are a currently a massive pain for operators, I
> > > > > > > know at
> > > > > > least
> > > > > > > one public cloud who have snapshots which take 2 days to
> > complete.
> > > > > > > e. snapshots (as they are) can't be used for multiple LVM
> disks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the process Mike has used in the SolidFire plugin (only
> > > > > > > moving
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > disk image to secondary storage when you absolutely have to) is
> > > > > > > a very
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > and pragmatic solution. I wonder what problems an operator
> might
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > if they have an issue with a given primary storage pool in a
> > > cluster.
> > > > > (I
> > > > > > > know that that is REALLY unlikely in the SolidFire case Mike :)
> > > > > > > ) And
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > the transfer from primary to secondary is slow, the time to
> > > > > > > being able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > create a template or export the volume will be slow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So for me the issue is around making sure that the end users
> > > > > expectations
> > > > > > > are met (while improving the speed/efficiency of the back end)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com> Paul Angus VP
> > > > > > > Technology , ShapeBlue
> > > > > > > d: *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540*
> > > > > > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> |
> m:
> > > > > > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784>
> > > > > > > e: *paul.angus@shapeblue.com | t: @cloudyangus*
> > > > > > > <paul.angus@shapeblue.com%20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus> | w:
> > > > > > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com>
> > > > > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK Shape
> Blue
> > > > > > > Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> > > > > > > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is
> > > > > > > operated
> > > > > > under
> > > > > > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda
> > > > > > > is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
> > > > > > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company
> > > > > > > registered by The Republic
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
> > > > > > > ShapeBlue
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a registered trademark.
> > > > > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and
> are
> > > > > intended
> > > > > > > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
> > > > > > > Any views
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
> > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you
> > > > > > > are not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any
> > > > > > > action
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please
> contact
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > sender
> > > > > > > if you believe you have received this email in error.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pdion@cloudops.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:56 PM
> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea of introducing a new API: StorageSnapshot for managed
> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > because the VolumeSnapshot default, or expected, behavior is to
> > > > > > > archive snapshots into the Secondary Storage. So a
> > > > > > > StorageSnapshot API would be
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > snapshot that remain on the managed storage appliance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Quickly looking at the API doc and I don't see a strong
> > > > > > > requirement for volume snapshots to be moved into secondary
> > > > > > > storage. So, maybe StorageSnapshot API is not useful, but both
> > > > > > > use cases are required. A snapshot that remain on the managed
> > > > > > > storage, and another type of
> > > > > snapshot
> > > > > > > that end up into the secondary storage. Since you've done a lot
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > work,
> > > > > > > might easier to just add a parameter to the current snapshot
> API
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > trigger an extraction of the storage snapshot into the
> secondary
> > > > > storage?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PL
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that all sounds reasonable then - thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Syed Mushtaq <
> > > > > syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> You are correct Mike in terms of the requirements. One of
> our
> > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > >> iterations on this was to have an argument to the create
> > > > > > > >> snapshot
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> which decides whether to backup the volume to sec storage
> but
> > > > > > > >> we realized it would make management of snapshots quite
> messy
> > > > > > > >> so we proposed a new api instead.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 8:29 PM Mike Tutkowski
> > > > > > > >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Just to make sure I understand all the requirements here:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 1) This relates only to managed storage (1:1 mapping
> between
> > > > > > > >>> a virtual disk and a backend SAN volume).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 2) We want to take the current (introduced in 4.6)
> > > > > > > >>> functionality, which creates a snapshot on the SAN, and
> > > > > > > >>> extend it via a config option (or
> > > > > > > >>> something) to not only take the SAN snapshot, but to copy
> > > > > > > >>> the underlying VHD (XenServer only) to NFS.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 3) The SAN snapshot is always taken. It's the backup to NFS
> > > > > > > >>> that is optional.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 4) Templates can be created from the snapshot that's on the
> > > > > > > >>> SAN (already works).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 5) CloudStack volumes can be created from the snapshot
> > > > > > > >>> that's on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> SAN (already works as long as the new CloudStack volume
> ends
> > > > > > > >>> up on the same primary storage).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Would we have a need for a storage snapshot API then or
> > > > > > > >>> would that just be the standard volume snapshot without the
> > > > > > > >>> backup to
> > > > NFS?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >>> Mike
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Syed Mushtaq
> > > > > > > >>> <syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Is it possible to have both functionalities (snapshot on
> > > > > > > >>>> SAN & Sec
> > > > > > > >>>> Storage) coexist? Because Ideally, we would like to have
> > both.
> > > > > > > >>>> For example, some of our customers want to implement their
> > > > > > > >>>> own backup strategies and do encryption to their backups
> > > > > > > >>>> which is a perfect use case for Storage Snapshot while our
> > > > > > > >>>> other customers will still keep using the standard volume
> > > > snapshot.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> To keep things backward compatible, we can add a setting
> > > > > > > >>>> which
> > > > > says
> > > > > > > >>>> to not upload on secondary storage, because, after all,
> you
> > > > > > > >>>> would take a SAN snapshot first when doing a Volume
> > Snapshot.
> > > > > > > >>>> You could stop the process there and not do the upload.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> What do you think about this approach?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> -Syed
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > > > >>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> So, this is just me thinking out load here, but if a
> given
> > > > > > > >>>>> CloudStack cloud doesn't actually need to provide both
> the
> > > > > ability
> > > > > > > >>>>> to take a SAN snapshot and export it to NFS (if just
> > > > > > > >>>>> taking a SAN snapshot is OK), then we might be able to
> get
> > > > > > > >>>>> away with no new
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > >>>>> calls and simply implement a new custom snapshot strategy
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > >>>>> motion strategy to handle the case where the CloudStack
> > > > > > > >>>>> cloud
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > >>>>> want both a SAN snapshot and exported-to-NFS backup.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> In other words, the "default" behavior would be to use
> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> snapshot strategy and data motion strategy that we
> already
> > > > > > > >>>>> have (the one that only takes a SAN snapshot).
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> If your CloudStack cloud, however, wants to take a SAN
> > > > > > > >>>>> snapshot and have the data exported to NFS, then we could
> > > > > > > >>>>> have you manipulate a Swing config file to make use of a
> > > > > > > >>>>> new snapshot strategy and data motion strategy that
> > > > > > > >>>>> performs both of these
> > > > > > > activities.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> This way, the old behavior is still the default for
> users,
> > > > > > > >>>>> but CloudStack admins can change this behavior via
> > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > > > >>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Right...I think we will need to come up with a viable
> > > > > > > >>>>>> upgrade path or some reasonable way for them to move
> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the old way to the new way (and some obvious way that
> > > > > > > >>>>>> they will know they need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > do this).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Syed Mushtaq <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm not really sure about the upgrade path however,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> customers who are using 4.6 and are on a managed
> storage
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> would no longer have the same functionality with Volume
> > > > Snapshots.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Syed Mushtaq <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> So if I understand correctly, currently taking a
> Volume
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Snapshots of a volume on a managed storage keeps it on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the storage array. As a part of this feature, we can
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> make sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Volume Snapshots on managed storage are uploaded to
> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> secondary storage. This would make the Volume Snapshot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> feature behave the same regardless of the storage
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (managed or
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> non-managed) And, for utilizing the efficient backend
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> storage
> > > > > > > capabilities, we can use the new storage snapshots API.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Whatever we do here, we need to have a plan to deal
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with the fact that we already have a feature (in 4.6
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> later) that allows you to use the existing
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> volume-snapshot APIs to create a volume snapshot (for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> managed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> storage) that resides on a backend SAN (using a
> custom
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> snapshot strategy and a custom data motion strategy).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> If these new APIs go in, then how should the original
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implementation (present in 4.6 and later) be changed?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> If it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changed, how do we support customers who are already
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> using
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> original volume-snapshot API to take snapshots on a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> backend
> > > > > > SAN?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Mike
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Will Stevens <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wstevens@cloudops.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Will you be able to create a Template from a
> > > > > StorageSnapshot?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If yes, will the template be stored in the secondary
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> storage like normal templates or will that be
> handled
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> somehow on the
> > > > > > > vendor side?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Syed Mushtaq <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Will!!!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Will Stevens <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wstevens@cloudops.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I explicitly linked the Design Spec in the Jira
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket because it was not clear in the 'mention'
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> section because it shows as a page 'you do not
> have
> > > > permission to'.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Syed Ahmed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <sahmed@cloudops.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Design Spec:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Sto
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rageSnapshot++API
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira Ticket
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 27
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We plan to propose a new set of APIs to do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots on managed storage backends like
> > SolidFire.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots on current managed storage stay on the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> device which is contrary to what CloudStack calls
> > > > snpshots.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But taking snapshots on storage and keeping it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there has its own advantages
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we would ideally like to have both ways of doing
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots. This proposal adds 4 new APIs to
> create
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots on backend storage.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think of this feature? I would
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> love to have some feedback. I am working on
> making
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the design
> > > > > spec
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more concrete but wanted to have a high level
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback first before starting to work on it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Syed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play
> >*™
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > > >>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > > >>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > > >>>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > > >>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > > >>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > >>>>> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > > >>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > > >>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > > >>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > > >>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > >>> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > > >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > > >>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack
> > > > > > > related
> > > > > > services:
> > > > > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> |
> CSForge –
> > > > > > > rapid IaaS deployment framework <http://shapeblue.com/csforge/
> >
> > > > > > > CloudStack Consulting
> > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> > > > > > CloudStack
> > > > > > > Software Engineering
> > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > > > > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> |
> > > > > > > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
> > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > >
> > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> > > services:
> > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> > > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge –
> rapid
> > > > IaaS deployment framework <http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack
> > > > Consulting <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> CloudStack
> > > > Software Engineering
> > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> |
> CloudStack
> > > > Bootcamp Training Courses <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/
> >
> > > >
> > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> > services:
> > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid
> > > IaaS deployment framework <http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> > > CloudStack Consulting <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> > CloudStack
> > > Software Engineering
> > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack
> > > Bootcamp Training Courses <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message