Edison, Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use in order to store files larger than 5 GB. Therefore, using the Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
Thanks, -John [1]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM >> To: Edison Su >> Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? >> >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM >>>> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su >>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in >> 4.2? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is >>>>>> that, we only >>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now. >>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the >>>>>> community, do >>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will >>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the >> integration? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Whats the bug ID for this? >>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. >>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them >>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path. >>>>> >>>>> --David >>>>> >>>> >>>> Edison, How broken is it? Is it shorter to fix or revert the object >>>> store changes? >>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or >>> not, as >> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time. >>> >>> >> >> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like? I mean, just because it > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to > support Swift. > But who will make the decision? > >> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it >> wasn't working. As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack >> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of >> that feature. >> >> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to >> do. I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support". If necessary, I'd say >> that >> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge... I don't want to see >> that happen though. That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it. >> >> -chip
