I've searched cloudstack.apache.org for 'secondary storage maintenance'. The procedure didn't catch my eye. Does anybody have a link for me?
Thanks Daan On 31 May 2013 09:59, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Exactly, > > I am not to familiar with cloudstack, yet. I will study the present > procedure and do a suggestion in this thread. > > Regards > Daan > On 31 May 2013 07:31, "Prasanna Santhanam" <t...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The current way of altering secondary storage is error prone. So +1 >> to your maintenance proposal. >> >> We don't store any checksums for the images we backup to secondary >> storage in our db today. So I'm interested to know how, when we bring >> up the new secondary storage we ensure consistency with previous >> (state of?) secondary storage that has been switched over. >> >> -- >> Prasanna., >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54:46PM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote: >> > Alez, >> > >> > This api call would then have to check if the new secondary storage >> > contains a compatible set of data in comparison to the prior one, would >> it? >> > Or do I misunderstand the procedure? >> > Regards, >> > On 30 May 2013 22:25, "Alex Huang" <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Daan, >> > > >> > > We have a procedure for doing that. The problem in general has to do >> with >> > > the large capacity of the secondary storage so it's actually better >> to do >> > > migration of data outside of cloudstack with some manual process in >> stages >> > > and then just fix up the secondary storage in the database. >> > > >> > > I do agree having an API to do these fixups are better than direct >> > > database manipulations. >> > > >> > > --Alex >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:39 AM >> > > > To: dev >> > > > Subject: Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage? >> > > > >> > > > Yes Chiradeep, >> > > > >> > > > That or maintenance on the secondary storage machine itself. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < >> > > > chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I can see a use for that: that the secondary storage becomes >> read-only >> > > > > during the maintenance (so no template creation/snapshots/etc). >> This >> > > > > allows for stuff like migration to new (file server) hardware. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 5/30/13 10:20 AM, "Nitin Mehta" <nitin.me...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >Not that I have heard of. You can at best replace the sec. >> storage >> > > > > >(there is a manual procedure for that), but since generally >> there is >> > > > > >a single sec. storage how can you implement maintenance mode ? >> > > > > >Can you please explain is your use case ? >> > > > > > >> > > > > >On 30/05/13 7:32 PM, "Daan Hoogland" < >> dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >>LS, >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>Has there ever been discussion about implementing maintenance >> mode >> > > > > >>for secondary storage? And are people thinking about this? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>thanks >> > > > > >>Daan Hoogland >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> ------------------------ >> Powered by BigRock.com >> >>
