So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not exist in 4.2)?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yeh...@inktank.com> wrote: > > I should point at ceph, and specifically the ceph rados gateway (rgw), as > it's been mentioned before in this thread. As you may know, ceph has > already been integrated with cloudstack through the ceph block storage > (rbd). So installations that already use ceph through that may get two for > the price of one. Also, with rgw you can access data both through the swift > api, and through the S3 api. It supports both the S3 multi-part upload, and > the swift big-file upload api. > We'll be happy to assist with getting rgw to seamlessly work within > cloudstack. > > Yehuda > > On 07/09/2013 01:14 PM, Edison Su wrote: > >> It sounds like there are a lot of work to do, to support multi-part >> upload: >> >> http://www.mirantis.com/blog/**large-objects-in-cloud-**storages/<http://www.mirantis.com/blog/large-objects-in-cloud-storages/> >> " As you can see, Amazon S3 API is more high-level while Swift API for >> large objects is pretty raw. Swift doesn't make a distinction between >> objects and object parts. This means it's the user's duty to take care of >> the parts. E.g., you should make sure that the prefix in the manifest >> doesn't match other objects by mistake. If you want to delete an object, >> you have to remove its parts as well, and so on." >> So it's a new issue that not happened on previous release. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:57 PM >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>> Cc: 'Chip Childers' >>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in >>> 4.2? >>> >>> 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<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.childers@sungard.**com<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.childers@sungard.**com<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 >>>>> >>>> >> > -- *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> *™*
