"I see prodded a facility to convert NFS secondary storage to object storage as an enhancement where the lack of a migration path is a blocking defect." I have different view on this item, regarding the priority. At one hand, we have almost all of cloudstack users are using NFS as secondary storage, if there is no way to upgrade to S3, then all of existing CloudStack deployment can't upgrade to use your Basho CS, or Amazon S3. On the other hand, there is tiny users are using S3/Swift(S3 in 4.0/4.1 even can't backup snapshot, and nobody reports the issue before, so I assume there is zero cloudstack users are using S3 in 4.0/4.1). Then fix the upgrade path for S3 from 4.0 to 4.2 has little gain for the whole CloudStack users(as the user base is almost zero), while fix the upgrade path from NFS to S3 will benefit the whole community a lot. So, which one has the higher priority? Isn't obvious?
From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:15 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Min Chen Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Edison, Unfortunately, given the time remaining the 4.2 release cycle, the most that can likely be done is to remove these global options. Due to the massive amount of cruft that will be created when these global options are removed, I am disappointed that a more a comprehensive code removal was not performed as part of this effort. I have opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3861 to address the duplicate functionality and task CLOUDSTACK-3862 to address removal of the dead code post 4.2.0. I completely disagree regarding the migration path issue. As we have discussed in the past on the list, we have no way of knowing what features are in the use across the community. Therefore, migration paths for feature replacements must always be provided in order to avoid a scenario where users are stranded. 4.1.0 users employing NFS secondary storage upgrading to 4.2.0 will suffer no loss of functionality. However, 4.1.0 users using either S3 or Swift-backed secondary storage will lose capability. I see prodded a facility to convert NFS secondary storage to object storage as an enhancement where the lack of a migration path is a blocking defect. As such, I have opened defect CLOUDSTACK-3360 [2] to address this issue. Thanks, -John [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3861 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3862 [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3860 On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com<mailto:edison...@citrix.com>> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com<http://basho.com>] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Cc: Min Chen Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features Edison, The old S3 and Swift-backed secondary storage can still be enabled (via global options) and configured along side the new object store feature. Is there a Do you mean "s3.enabled" and "swift.enabled" in global configuration? This two options should be removed, and they won't have any effect any more. reason why they are still present? I would have expected the code to have been removed. The second question is how users utilizing those features will be migrated to the new object storage approach. Haven't have time to take a look at upgrade issue yet. Should be able to upgrade from existing S3/Swift into 4.2, but I doubt are there any users are using S3/Swift in CloudStack? We'd better put our energy on how to upgrade existing NFS secondary storage to S3/Swift, which are the most users of CloudStack using. Thanks, -John On Jul 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com<mailto:edison...@citrix.com>> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com<http://basho.com>] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:06 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Cc: Edison Su; Min Chen Subject: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features All, I have noticed during testing that the old S3 and Swift-backed secondary What you mean the old s3/swift secondary? Upgrading the old s3 from 4.1 to 4.2? storage features are still available in the 4.2.0. It seems to me that they should be disabled (given the late date), and removed completely post 4.2.0 release. Also, what is the migration/upgrade strategy for customers using these features? Thanks, -John
signature.asc
Description: signature.asc
