cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:10:20 GMT
Volume backup only works if you rely on a single volume.

Any system using LVM (or dynamic disks in Windows) that spans more than one
volume is going to have problems using Volume Snapshots.
Or cases where your application stores data in different disks, perhaps
your data and your journal are laying on different volumes but you need
them to be consistent.

And so on.

-- 
Erik

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mushtaq@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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-927
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/>
> >
>

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