It sounds like there are a lot of work to do, to support multi-part upload:
http://www.mirantis.com/blog/large-objects-in-cloud-storages/ " As you can see, Amazon S3 API is more high-level while Swift API for large objects is pretty raw. Swift doesn't make a distinction between objects and object parts. This means it's the user's duty to take care of the parts. E.g., you should make sure that the prefix in the manifest doesn't match other objects by mistake. If you want to delete an object, you have to remove its parts as well, and so on. " So it's a new issue that not happened on previous release. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:57 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: 'Chip Childers' > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? > > Edison, > > Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use > in order to store files larger than 5 GB. Therefore, using the Swift's S3 > compatibility layer is not a viable workaround. > > Thanks, > -John > > [1]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM > >> To: Edison Su > >> Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in > >> 4.2? > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM > >>>> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su > >>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be > >>>> supported in > >> 4.2? > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is > >>>>>> that, we only > >>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now. > >>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the > >>>>>> community, do > >>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will > >>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can > >>>> help the > >> integration? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Whats the bug ID for this? > >>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. > >>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them > >>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path. > >>>>> > >>>>> --David > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Edison, How broken is it? Is it shorter to fix or revert the > >>>> object store changes? > >>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change > >>> it or not, as > >> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like? I mean, just > >> because it > > > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to > > support > Swift. > > But who will make the decision? > > > >> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean > >> that it wasn't working. As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only > >> because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to > >> perform regression testing of that feature. > >> > >> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out > >> what to do. I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support". If > >> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch > >> merge... I don't want to see that happen though. That's why I'm asking > about effort to fix it. > >> > >> -chip
