Alez, This api call would then have to check if the new secondary storage contains a compatible set of data in comparison to the prior one, would it? Or do I misunderstand the procedure? Regards, On 30 May 2013 22:25, "Alex Huang" <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Daan, > > We have a procedure for doing that. The problem in general has to do with > the large capacity of the secondary storage so it's actually better to do > migration of data outside of cloudstack with some manual process in stages > and then just fix up the secondary storage in the database. > > I do agree having an API to do these fixups are better than direct > database manipulations. > > --Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:39 AM > > To: dev > > Subject: Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage? > > > > Yes Chiradeep, > > > > That or maintenance on the secondary storage machine itself. > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > > chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > I can see a use for that: that the secondary storage becomes read-only > > > during the maintenance (so no template creation/snapshots/etc). This > > > allows for stuff like migration to new (file server) hardware. > > > > > > On 5/30/13 10:20 AM, "Nitin Mehta" <nitin.me...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Not that I have heard of. You can at best replace the sec. storage > > > >(there is a manual procedure for that), but since generally there is > > > >a single sec. storage how can you implement maintenance mode ? > > > >Can you please explain is your use case ? > > > > > > > >On 30/05/13 7:32 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>LS, > > > >> > > > >>Has there ever been discussion about implementing maintenance mode > > > >>for secondary storage? And are people thinking about this? > > > >> > > > >>thanks > > > >>Daan Hoogland > > > > > > > > > > >
