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:jburwell@...]
> Sent: Friday,
K-3860
On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Edison Su
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>
C
]
> 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 rem
:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Min Chen
>> Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features
>>
>> Edison
> -Original Message-
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:13 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Min Chen
> Subject: Re: [ACS42] Duplicate S3 and Swift Object Storage Features
>
> Edison,
>
> The old
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
reason why they are still present? I would have expected the code to have been
removed.
The second question is how users utilizin
> -Original Message-
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:06 PM
> To: 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 o
