+1 with this feature.
like Logan said the current snapshot is just a copy of VDI/vmdk/qcow2's to
the secondary storage
hence the current feature acts as a backup feature taking a long time.
also the current cloudstack storage framework is not allowing the third
party storage vendors like cloudbyte and others to leverage their backend
storage snapshot feature where file systems support Copy on Write.
for example : In cloudbyte elastistor which is based on zfs filesystem, it
allows to take multiple snapshots within seconds.
and a volume clones can be created from each snapshot.
hence if the VDI/vmdk/qcow2's are already residing in
the volume, the clones will just replicate the
existing virtual disks. hence there will be no overhead of copying a
snapshot to a new volume or primary storage over the
network.
hence there should be an option provided to leverage a snapshot and
creating a volume out of it to the corresponding backend storage provider
in use.
thanks
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> Whatever way you think makes the most sense.
>
> Either way, I'm working on this for XenServer and ESXi (eventually on KVM,
> I expect) for managed storage (SolidFire is an example of managed storage).
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky <and...@arhont.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am happy to see the discussion is taking its pace and a lot of people
> > tend to agree that we should address this area. I have done the ticket
> for
> > that, but I am not sure if this should be dealt in a more general way as
> > suggested. Or perhaps having individual tickets for each hypervisor would
> > achieve a faster response from the community?
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > From: "Mike Tutkowski" <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Sent: Monday, 16 February, 2015 9:17:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Your thoughts on using Primary Storage for keeping
> > > snapshots
> >
> > > Well...count me in on the general-purpose part (I'm already working
> > > on that
> > > and have much of it working).
> >
> > > If someone is interested in implementing the RBD part, he/she can
> > > sync with
> > > me and see if there is any overlapping work that I've already
> > > implementing
> > > from a general-purpose standpoint.
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ian Rae <i...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Agree with Logan. As fans of Ceph as well as SolidFire, we are
> > > > interested
> > > > in seeing this particular use case (RBD/KVM) being well
> > > > implemented,
> > > > however the concept of volume snapshots residing only on primary
> > > > storage vs
> > > > being transferred to secondary storage is a more generally useful
> > > > one that
> > > > is worth solving with the same terminology and interfaces, even if
> > > > the
> > > > mechanisms may be specific to the storage type and hypervisor.
> > > >
> > > > It its not practical then its not practical, but seems like it
> > > > would be
> > > > worth trying.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Logan Barfield
> > > > <lbarfi...@tqhosting.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree it is a general CloudStack issue that can be addressed
> > > > > across
> > > > > multiple primary storage options. It's a two stage issue since
> > > > > some
> > > > > changes will need to be implemented to support these features
> > > > > across
> > > > > the board, and others will need to be made to each storage
> > > > > option.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice to see a single issue opened to cover this
> > > > > across all
> > > > > available storage options. Maybe have a community vote on what
> > > > > support they want to see, and not consider the feature complete
> > > > > until
> > > > > all of the desired options are implemented? That would slow down
> > > > > development for sure, but it would ensure that it was supported
> > > > > where
> > > > > it needs to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank You,
> > > > >
> > > > > Logan Barfield
> > > > > Tranquil Hosting
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> > > > > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > > For example, Punith from CloudByte sent out an e-mail yesterday
> > > > > > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > very similar to this thread, but he was wondering how to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > such a
> > > > > > concept on his company's SAN technology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Yeah, I think it's a similar concept, though.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You would want to take snapshots on Ceph (or some other
> > > > > >> backend system
> > > > > >> that acts as primary storage) instead of copying data to
> > > > > >> secondary
> > > > > storage
> > > > > >> and calling it a snapshot.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> For Ceph or any other backend system like that, the idea is to
> > > > > >> speed
> > > > up
> > > > > >> snapshots by not requiring CPU cycles on the front end or
> > > > > >> network
> > > > > bandwidth
> > > > > >> to transfer the data.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In that sense, this is a general-purpose CloudStack problem
> > > > > >> and it
> > > > > appears
> > > > > >> you are intending on discussing only the Ceph implementation
> > > > > >> here,
> > > > > which is
> > > > > >> fine.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Logan Barfield <
> > > > > lbarfi...@tqhosting.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Mike,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think the interest in this issue is primarily for Ceph RBD,
> > > > > >>> which
> > > > > >>> doesn't use iSCSI or SAN concepts in general. As well I
> > > > > >>> believe RBD
> > > > > >>> is only currently supported in KVM (and VMware?). QEMU has
> > > > > >>> native
> > > > RBD
> > > > > >>> support, so it attaches the devices directly to the VMs in
> > > > > >>> question.
> > > > > >>> It also natively supports snapshotting, which is what this
> > > > > >>> discussion
> > > > > >>> is about.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thank You,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Logan Barfield
> > > > > >>> Tranquil Hosting
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> > > > > >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > I should have also commented on KVM (since that was the
> > > > > >>> > hypervisor
> > > > > >>> called
> > > > > >>> > out in the initial e-mail).
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > In my situation, most of my customers use XenServer and/or
> > > > > >>> > ESXi, so
> > > > > KVM
> > > > > >>> has
> > > > > >>> > received the fewest of my cycles with regards to those
> > > > > >>> > three
> > > > > >>> hypervisors.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > KVM, though, is actually the simplest hypervisor for which
> > > > > >>> > to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > >>> > these changes (since I am using the iSCSI adapter of the
> > > > > >>> > KVM agent
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >>> > just essentially passes my LUN to the VM in question).
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > For KVM, there is no clustered file system applied to my
> > > > > >>> > backend
> > > > LUN,
> > > > > >>> so I
> > > > > >>> > don't have to "worry" about that layer.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > I don't see any hurdles like *immutable* UUIDs of SRs and
> > > > > >>> > VDIs
> > > > (such
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>> > case with XenServer) or having to re-signature anything
> > > > > >>> > (such is
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> case
> > > > > >>> > with ESXi).
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > >>> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >> I have been working on this on and off for a while now (as
> > > > > >>> >> time
> > > > > >>> permits).
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Here is an e-mail I sent to a customer of ours that helps
> > > > > >>> >> describe
> > > > > >>> some of
> > > > > >>> >> the issues:
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> *** Beginning of e-mail ***
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> The main requests were around the following features:
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> * The ability to leverage SolidFire snapshots.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> * The ability to create CloudStack templates from
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire
> > > > > snapshots.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I had these on my roadmap, but bumped the priority up and
> > > > > >>> >> began
> > > > > work on
> > > > > >>> >> them for the CS 4.6 release.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> During design, I realized there were issues with the way
> > > > > >>> >> XenServer
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>> >> architected that prevented me from directly using
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire
> > > > > snapshots.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I could definitely take a SolidFire snapshot of a
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire
> > > > volume,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >>> >> this snapshot would not be usable from XenServer if the
> > > > > >>> >> original
> > > > > >>> volume was
> > > > > >>> >> still in use.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Here is the gist of the problem:
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> When XenServer leverages an iSCSI target such as a
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire
> > > > > volume, it
> > > > > >>> >> applies a clustered files system to it, which they call a
> > > > > >>> >> storage
> > > > > >>> >> repository (SR). An SR has an *immutable* UUID associated
> > > > > >>> >> with it.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> The virtual volume (which a VM sees as a disk) is
> > > > > >>> >> represented by a
> > > > > >>> virtual
> > > > > >>> >> disk image (VDI) in the SR. A VDI also has an *immutable*
> > > > > >>> >> UUID
> > > > > >>> associated
> > > > > >>> >> with it.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> If I take a snapshot (or a clone) of the SolidFire volume
> > > > > >>> >> and then
> > > > > >>> later
> > > > > >>> >> try to use that snapshot from XenServer, XenServer
> > > > > >>> >> complains that
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> SR on
> > > > > >>> >> the snapshot has a UUID that conflicts with an existing
> > > > > >>> >> UUID.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> In other words, it is not possible to use the original SR
> > > > > >>> >> and the
> > > > > >>> snapshot
> > > > > >>> >> of this SR from XenServer at the same time, which is
> > > > > >>> >> critical in a
> > > > > >>> cloud
> > > > > >>> >> environment (to enable creating templates from snapshots).
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> The way I have proposed circumventing this issue is not
> > > > > >>> >> ideal, but
> > > > > >>> >> technically works (this code is checked into the CS 4.6
> > > > > >>> >> branch):
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> When the time comes to take a CloudStack snapshot of a
> > > > > >>> >> CloudStack
> > > > > >>> volume
> > > > > >>> >> that is backed by SolidFire storage via the storage
> > > > > >>> >> plug-in, the
> > > > > >>> plug-in
> > > > > >>> >> will create a new SolidFire volume with characteristics
> > > > > >>> >> (size and
> > > > > IOPS)
> > > > > >>> >> equal to those of the original volume.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> We then have XenServer attach to this new SolidFire
> > > > > >>> >> volume,
> > > > create a
> > > > > >>> *new*
> > > > > >>> >> SR on it, and then copy the VDI from the source SR to the
> > > > > destination
> > > > > >>> SR
> > > > > >>> >> (the new SR).
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> This leads to us having a copy of the VDI (a "snapshot" of
> > > > > >>> >> sorts),
> > > > > but
> > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >>> >> requires CPU cycles on the compute cluster as well as
> > > > > >>> >> network
> > > > > >>> bandwidth to
> > > > > >>> >> write to the SAN (thus it is slower and more resource
> > > > > >>> >> intensive
> > > > > than a
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire snapshot).
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I spoke with Tim Mackey (who works on XenServer at Citrix)
> > > > > concerning
> > > > > >>> this
> > > > > >>> >> issue before and during the CloudStack Collaboration
> > > > > >>> >> Conference in
> > > > > >>> Budapest
> > > > > >>> >> in November. He agreed that this is a legitimate issue
> > > > > >>> >> with the
> > > > way
> > > > > >>> >> XenServer is designed and could not think of a way (other
> > > > > >>> >> than
> > > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>> was
> > > > > >>> >> doing) to get around it in current versions of XenServer.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> One thought is to have a feature added to XenServer that
> > > > > >>> >> enables
> > > > > you to
> > > > > >>> >> change the UUID of an SR and of a VDI.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> If I could do that, then I could take a SolidFire snapshot
> > > > > >>> >> of the
> > > > > >>> >> SolidFire volume and issue commands to XenServer to have
> > > > > >>> >> it change
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> >> UUIDs of the original SR and the original VDI. I could
> > > > > >>> >> then
> > > > recored
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> >> necessary UUID info in the CS DB.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> *** End of e-mail ***
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> I have since investigated this on ESXi.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> ESXi does have a way for us to "re-signature" a datastore,
> > > > > >>> >> so
> > > > > backend
> > > > > >>> >> snapshots can be taken and effectively used on this
> > > > > >>> >> hypervisor.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Logan Barfield <
> > > > > >>> lbarfi...@tqhosting.com>
> > > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >>> I'm just going to stick with the qemu-img option change
> > > > > >>> >>> for RBD
> > > > for
> > > > > >>> >>> now (which should cut snapshot time down drastically),
> > > > > >>> >>> and look
> > > > > >>> >>> forward to this in the future. I'd be happy to help get
> > > > > >>> >>> this
> > > > > moving,
> > > > > >>> >>> but I'm not enough of a developer to lead the charge.
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>> As far as renaming goes, I agree that maybe backups isn't
> > > > > >>> >>> the
> > > > right
> > > > > >>> >>> word. That being said calling a full-sized copy of a
> > > > > >>> >>> volume a
> > > > > >>> >>> "snapshot" also isn't the right word. Maybe "image" would
> > > > > >>> >>> be
> > > > > better?
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>> I've also got my reservations about "accounts" vs "users"
> > > > > >>> >>> (I
> > > > think
> > > > > >>> >>> "departments" and "accounts or users" respectively is
> > > > > >>> >>> less
> > > > > confusing),
> > > > > >>> >>> but that's a different thread.
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>> Thank You,
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>> Logan Barfield
> > > > > >>> >>> Tranquil Hosting
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Wido den Hollander <
> > > > > w...@widodh.nl>
> > > > > >>> >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> > On 16-02-15 15:38, Logan Barfield wrote:
> > > > > >>> >>> >> 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.
> > > > > >>> >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> > I fully agree that this would be a very great addition.
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> > I won't be able to work on this any time soon though.
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> > Wido
> > > > > >>> >>> >
> > > > > >>> >>> >> 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
> > > > > >>> >>>
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> --
> > > > > >>> >> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > >>> >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > >>> >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > > > > >>> >> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > >>> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > >>> >> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > --
> > > > > >>> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > >>> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > >>> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > > > > >>> > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > >>> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > >>> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > > > > >> o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > >> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Ian Rae*
> > > > PDG *| *CEO
> > > > t *514.944.4008*
> > > >
> > > > *CloudOps* Votre partenaire infonuagique* | *Cloud Solutions
> > > > Experts
> > > > w cloudops.com <http://www.cloudops.com/> *|* 420 rue Guy *|*
> > > > Montreal *|*
> > > > Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> > > >
> > > > <https://www.cloud.ca/>
> > > > <
> > > >
> >
> http://www.cloudops.com/2014/11/cloudops-tops-deloittes-technology-fast-50/
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > --
> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>
--
regards,
punith s
cloudbyte.com
