To delve into this in a bit more detail: Prior to 4.2 and aside from one setup method for XenServer, the admin had to first create a volume on the storage system, then go into the hypervisor to set up a data structure to make use of the volume (ex. a storage repository on XenServer or a datastore on ESX(i)). VMs and data disks then shared this storage system's volume.
With Edison's new storage framework, storage need no longer be so static and you can easily create a 1:1 relationship between a storage system's volume and the VM's data disk (necessary for storage Quality of Service). You can now write a plug-in that is called to dynamically create and delete volumes as needed. The problem that the storage framework did not address is in creating and deleting the hypervisor-specific data structure when performing an attach/detach. That being the case, I've been enhancing it to do so. I've got XenServer worked out and submitted. I've got ESX(i) in my sandbox and can submit this if we extend the 4.2 freeze date. Does that help a bit? :) On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > wrote: > Hi John, > > The storage plug-in - by itself - is hypervisor agnostic. > > The issue is with the volume-attach logic (in the agent code). The storage > framework calls into the plug-in to have it create a volume as needed, but > when the time comes to attach the volume to a hypervisor, the attach logic > has to be smart enough to recognize it's being invoked on zone-wide storage > (where the volume has just been created) and create, say, a storage > repository (for XenServer) or a datastore (for VMware) to make use of the > volume that was just created. > > I've been spending most of my time recently making the attach logic work > in the agent code. > > Does that clear it up? > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> Can you explain why the the storage driver is hypervisor specific? >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Yes, ultimately I would like to support all hypervisors that CloudStack >> > supports. I think I'm just out of time for 4.2 to get KVM in. >> > >> > Right now this plug-in supports XenServer. Depending on what we do with >> > regards to 4.2 feature freeze, I have it working for VMware in my >> sandbox, >> > as well. >> > >> > Also, just to be clear, this is all in regards to Disk Offerings. I >> plan to >> > support Compute Offerings post 4.2. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <kel...@bbits.ca >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Is there any plan on supporting KVM in the patch cycle post 4.2? >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Mike Tutkowski" <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:12:32 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER >> >> >> >> I agree on merging Wei's feature first, then mine. >> >> >> >> If his feature is for KVM only, then it is a non issue as I don't >> support >> >> KVM in 4.2. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> John, >> >>> >> >>> For the billing, as no one works on billing now, users need to >> calculate >> >>> the billing by themselves. They can get the service_offering and >> >>> disk_offering of a VMs and volumes for calculation. Of course it is >> >> better >> >>> to tell user the exact limitation value of individual volume, and >> network >> >>> rate limitation for nics as well. I can work on it later. Do you >> think it >> >>> is a part of I/O throttling? >> >>> >> >>> Sorry my misunstand the second the question. >> >>> >> >>> Agree with what you said about the two features. >> >>> >> >>> -Wei >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> >> >>> >> >>>> Wei, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi John, Mike >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I hope Mike's aswer helps you. I am trying to adding more. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (1) I think billing should depend on IO statistics rather than IOPS >> >>>>> limitation. Please review disk_io_stat if you have time. >> >> disk_io_stat >> >>>> can >> >>>>> get the IO statistics including bytes/iops read/write for an >> >> individual >> >>>>> virtual machine. >> >>>> >> >>>> Going by the AWS model, customers are billed more for volumes with >> >>>> provisioned IOPS, as well as, for those operations ( >> >>>> http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/). I would imagine our users would like >> the >> >>>> option to employ similar cost models. Could an operator implement >> >> such a >> >>>> billing model in the current patch? >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (2) Do you mean IOPS runtime change? KVM supports setting IOPS/BPS >> >>>>> limitation for a running virtual machine through command line. >> >> However, >> >>>>> CloudStack does not support changing the parameters of a created >> >>> offering >> >>>>> (computer offering or disk offering). >> >>>> >> >>>> I meant at the Java interface level. I apologize for being unclear. >> >> Can >> >>>> we more generalize allocation algorithms with a set of interfaces >> that >> >>>> describe the service guarantees provided by a resource? >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (3) It is a good question. Maybe it is better to commit Mike's patch >> >>>> after >> >>>>> disk_io_throttling as Mike needs to consider the limitation in >> >>> hypervisor >> >>>>> type, I think. >> >>>> >> >>>> I will expand on my thoughts in a later response to Mike regarding >> the >> >>>> touch points between these two features. I think that >> >> disk_io_throttling >> >>>> will need to be merged before SolidFire, but I think we need closer >> >>>> coordination between the branches (possibly have have solidfire track >> >>>> disk_io_throttling) to coordinate on this issue. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> - Wei >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Mike, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The things I want to understand are the following: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 1) Is there value in capturing IOPS policies be captured in a >> >> common >> >>>>>> data model (e.g. for billing/usage purposes, expressing offerings). >> >>>>>> 2) Should there be a common interface model for reasoning about >> >> IOP >> >>>>>> provisioning at runtime? >> >>>>>> 3) How are conflicting provisioned IOPS configurations between a >> >>>>>> hypervisor and storage device reconciled? In particular, a >> scenario >> >>>> where >> >>>>>> is lead to believe (and billed) for more IOPS configured for a VM >> >>> than a >> >>>>>> storage device has been configured to deliver. Another scenario >> >>> could a >> >>>>>> consistent configuration between a VM and a storage device at >> >> creation >> >>>>>> time, but a later modification to storage device introduces logical >> >>>>>> inconsistency. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>> -John >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> >>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi John, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I believe Wei's feature deals with controlling the max number of >> >> IOPS >> >>>> from >> >>>>>> the hypervisor side. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> My feature is focused on controlling IOPS from the storage system >> >>> side. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I hope that helps. :) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wei, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My opinion is that no features should be merged until all >> >> functional >> >>>>>>> issues have been resolved and it is ready to turn over to test. >> >>> Until >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> total Ops vs discrete read/write ops issue is addressed and >> >>> re-reviewed >> >>>>>> by >> >>>>>>> Wido, I don't think this criteria has been satisfied. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Also, how does this work intersect/compliment the SolidFire patch >> ( >> >>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/)? As I understand it that >> >> work >> >>> is >> >>>>>>> also involves provisioned IOPS. I would like to ensure we don't >> >>> have a >> >>>>>>> scenario where provisioned IOPS in KVM and SolidFire are >> >>> unnecessarily >> >>>>>>> incompatible. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>> -John >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Sure. I will change it next week. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Wei >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2013/6/1 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Wei, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 06/01/2013 08:24 AM, Wei ZHOU wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Exactly. I have pushed the features into master. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If anyone object thems for technical reason till Monday, I will >> >>> revert >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> them. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> For the sake of clarity I just want to mention again that we >> should >> >>>>>> change >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> the total IOps to R/W IOps asap so that we never release a version >> >>> with >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> only total IOps. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> You laid the groundwork for the I/O throttling and that's great! >> We >> >>>>>> should >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> however prevent that we create legacy from day #1. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Wei >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write >> >>> IOPS. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> correctly >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> split total IOPS into read and write. Therefore, we would be >> stuck >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> with a >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> total unless/until we decided to break backwards compatibility. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> What Wei meant was merging it into master now so that it will go >> in >> >>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 4.2 branch and add Read / Write IOps before the 4.2 release so >> that >> >>> 4.2 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> will be released with Read and Write instead of Total IOps. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> This is to make the May 31st feature freeze date. But if the >> window >> >>>> moves >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (see other threads) then it won't be necessary to do that. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I also completely agree that there is no association between >> >> network >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> disk I/O. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -John >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On May 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Wei, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 05/31/2013 03:13 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Wido, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Good question. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I thought about at the beginning. Finally I decided to ignore the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> difference of read and write mainly because the network throttling >> >>> did >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> not >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> care the difference of sent and received bytes as well. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> That reasoning seems odd. Networking and disk I/O completely >> >>> different. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Disk I/O is much more expensive in most situations then network >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> bandwith. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Implementing it will be some copy-paste work. It could be >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> implemented in >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> few days. For the deadline of feature freeze, I will implement it >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> after >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> that , if needed. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It think it's a feature we can't miss. But if it goes into the 4.2 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> window we have to make sure we don't release with only total IOps >> >> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> fix >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> it in 4.3, that will confuse users. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Wei >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Wei, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 05/30/2013 06:03 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into master. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48 hours. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The purpose is : >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Virtual machines are running on the same storage device (local >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> storage or >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> share strage). Because of the rate limitation of device (such as >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> iops), if >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> one VM has large disk operation, it may affect the disk >> performance >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> other VMs running on the same storage device. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It is neccesary to set the maximum rate and limit the disk I/O of >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> VMs. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Looking at the code I see you make no difference between Read and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Write >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> IOps. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Qemu and libvirt support setting both a different rate for Read >> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Write >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> IOps which could benefit a lot of users. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It's also strange, in the polling side you collect both the Read >> >> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Write >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> IOps, but on the throttling side you only go for a global value. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Write IOps are usually much more expensive then Read IOps, so it >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> seems >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> like a valid use-case where that an admin would set a lower value >> >> for >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> write >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> IOps vs Read IOps. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Since this only supports KVM at this point I think it would be of >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> great >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> value to at least have the mechanism in place to support both, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> implementing >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> this later would be a lot of work. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If a hypervisor doesn't support setting different values for read >> >> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> write you can always sum both up and set that as the total limit. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Can you explain why you implemented it this way? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wido >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The feature includes: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (1) set the maximum rate of VMs (in disk_offering, and global >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> configuration) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (2) change the maximum rate of VMs >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (3) limit the disk rate (total bps and iops) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/**** >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**** >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< >> >>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <** >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< >> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> FS (I will update later) : >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******< >> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> < >> >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**< >> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://**** >> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**** >> >> < >> >>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<https://cwiki.** >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling >> >> < >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Merge check list :- >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> * Did you check the branch's RAT execution success? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Yes >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> * Are there new dependencies introduced? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> No >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> * What automated testing (unit and integration) is included in the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> new >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> feature? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Unit tests are added. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> * What testing has been done to check for potential regressions? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (1) set the bytes rate and IOPS rate on CloudStack UI. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (2) VM operations, including >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> deploy, stop, start, reboot, destroy, expunge. migrate, restore >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (3) Volume operations, including >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Attach, Detach >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> To review the code, you can try >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> git diff c30057635d04a2396f84c588127d7e******be42e503a7 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> f2e5591b710d04cc86815044f5823e******73a4a58944 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Wei >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> [1] >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******< >> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> < >> >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**< >> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://**** >> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**** >> >> < >> >>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<https://cwiki.** >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling >> >> < >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> [2] refs/heads/disk_io_throttling >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> [3] >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/******jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< >> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< >> >>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <** >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< >> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/****jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< >> >>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> **< >> >>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< >> >>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <** >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< >> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> <h**ttps://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< >> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (**CLOUDSTACK-1301 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> - VM Disk I/O Throttling) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> *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> > *™* > -- *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> *™*
