On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi Chip, > > As I understand, 509 "backs" the NFS secondary storage using a S3 compatible > Object Store. I'm proposing that CS uses any S3 ased Object Store as the > "main" secondary storage (I want to avoid using the word primary in this > context..) - in that sense, it is similar to the Swift use case (which uses > NFS as a temporary staging) - I don't know if that (NFS as a temporary > staging is strictly required also? Plus, I want to have a single object store > for the entire region, across multiple zones (it doesn't appear 509 can do > that) > > Simply put, 509 is about "backing NFS secondary storage with an S3-compatible > object store" - my proposal is about having an S3 compatible object store as > THE secondary storage >
Clear distinction. Thanks for elaborating. > Hari > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:56 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]S3-based secondary storage > > Isn't this a duplicate of CLOUDSTACK-509? Can we close CLOUDSTACK-714? > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: >> 714 >
