cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mush...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2016 15:30:35 GMT
 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-9278
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>*™*
>

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