+1 for renaming the Snapshot into something more logical. However, for many ppl Backups kind of means the functionality on a more granular level (like ability to restore files, etc.) Not sure if Backup should be the right term for the current volume Snapshots.
I agree, there should be ability to copy snapshots to the secondary storage. perhaps even both if one requires. If someone wants to have a backup copy of the snapshot on the secondary storage, they might choose to have this option. Andrei ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Logan Barfield" <lbarfi...@tqhosting.com> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Monday, 16 February, 2015 2:38:00 PM > Subject: Re: Your thoughts on using Primary Storage for keeping > snapshots > I like this idea a lot for Ceph RBD. I do think there should still be > support for copying snapshots to secondary storage as needed (for > transfers between zones, etc.). I really think that this could be > part of a larger move to clarify the naming conventions used for disk > operations. Currently "Volume Snapshots" should probably really be > called "Backups". So having "snapshot" functionality, and a "convert > snapshot to backup/template" would be a good move. > Thank You, > Logan Barfield > Tranquil Hosting > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Andrija Panic > <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BIG +1 > > > > My team should submit some patch to ACS for better KVM snapshots, > > including > > whole VM snapshot etc...but it's too early to give details... > > best > > > > On 16 February 2015 at 13:01, Andrei Mikhailovsky > > <and...@arhont.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello guys, > >> > >> I was hoping to have some feedback from the community on the > >> subject of > >> having an ability to keep snapshots on the primary storage where > >> it is > >> supported by the storage backend. > >> > >> The idea behind this functionality is to improve how snapshots are > >> currently handled on KVM hypervisors with Ceph primary storage. At > >> the > >> moment, the snapshots are taken on the primary storage and being > >> copied to > >> the secondary storage. This method is very slow and inefficient > >> even on > >> small infrastructure. Even on medium deployments using snapshots > >> in KVM > >> becomes nearly impossible. If you have tens or hundreds concurrent > >> snapshots taking place you will have a bunch of timeouts and > >> errors, your > >> network becomes clogged, etc. In addition, using these snapshots > >> for > >> creating new volumes or reverting back vms also slow and > >> inefficient. As > >> above, when you have tens or hundreds concurrent operations it > >> will not > >> succeed and you will have a majority of tasks with errors or > >> timeouts. > >> > >> At the moment, taking a single snapshot of relatively small > >> volumes (200GB > >> or 500GB for instance) takes tens if not hundreds of minutes. > >> Taking a > >> snapshot of the same volume on ceph primary storage takes a few > >> seconds at > >> most! Similarly, converting a snapshot to a volume takes tens if > >> not > >> hundreds of minutes when secondary storage is involved; compared > >> with > >> seconds if done directly on the primary storage. > >> > >> I suggest that the CloudStack should have the ability to keep > >> volume > >> snapshots on the primary storage where this is supported by the > >> storage. > >> Perhaps having a per primary storage setting that enables this > >> functionality. This will be beneficial for Ceph primary storage on > >> KVM > >> hypervisors and perhaps on XenServer when Ceph will be supported > >> in a near > >> future. > >> > >> This will greatly speed up the process of using snapshots on KVM > >> and users > >> will actually start using snapshotting rather than giving up with > >> frustration. > >> > >> I have opened the ticket CLOUDSTACK-8256, so please cast your vote > >> if you > >> are in agreement. > >> > >> Thanks for your input > >> > >> Andrei > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrija Panić
