To me it sounds like number two and number three are different uses for the same "thing"(which is totally fine).
As for taking a fast SAN snapshot and exporting it asynchronously, do we see the SSVM as performing the export? To be backwards compatible with what we have in 4.6 and later for volume snapshots for managed storage, I think it might be easier if we pass in a flag that says whether or not to archive the SAN snapshot (which, I think, is something that you suggested, as well, Pierre-Luc). On Monday, February 8, 2016, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > The reason behind the creation of a SAN snapshot which is exported into > secondary storage, is because creating a copy of the .VHD directly would > impact uptime of the VM as creating that copy take lots of time. Has oppose > to a SAN snapshot that is close to instantaneous which can afterward be > clone into Secondary Storage asynchronously. > > I would suspect an extracted VolumeSnapshot taken from a SAN snapshot could > have is SAN snapshot deleted to avoid duplica and space consumption on the > Primary Storage side. > > > I see 3 definitions in our current discussion regarding the term snapshot > (these are not official terminology but by own interpretation of them): > > 1. *Snapshot* (AKA: Storage Snapshot / Mike's definition of a snapshot): > it's a volume snapshot at the storage level, point in time of your data. it > reside on the primary storage. Useful and efficient for software side > incident. > 2. *Cloud Snapshot *( AKA: CloudStack VolumeSnapshot/ cloud backup aws-S3 > style ): Point in time copy of the Virtual Disk that reside on a different > storage array then the original Volume. Facilitate data migration between > clusters and, in case of primary storage incident, Volume snapshots are not > impacted and can be reuse. > 3. *Backup*: Archival of your Virtual-machines data that also validate data > integrity, provide a storage efficient archiving method and an independent > way to restore your data in case of an major infrastructure disaster. > > > Regards, > > PL > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;> > > wrote: > > > So, let's see if I currently follow the requirements: > > > > * Augment volume snapshots for managed storage to conditionally export > data > > to NFS. The current process of taking a snapshot on the SAN is fine, but > > we'd like the option to export the data to NFS, as well. > > > > Questions: > > > > Once the data has been exported to NFS, do we keep the SAN snapshot or > > delete it? > > > > If we are deleting the SAN snapshot, then why don't we just copy the VHD > > from primary to secondary the way we do today for non-managed (i.e. > > traditional) storage? Why create a SAN snapshot in that scenario? Perhaps > > to have the SSVM mount and perform the VHD copy to secondary storage > > instead of a XenServer host? > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > By the way, to me a backup is when you copy data from one storage system > to > > another (regardless of features, if any, to restore the data in the > > future). A snapshot is a point-in-time view of the data of a volume and > > it's stored on the same storage system as the volume. > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > That's fun to see that discussion happening. I 100% agree with Paul's > > > points of view. VolumeSnapshot are not a backup, but I do consider them > > as > > > a safety vest against Primary Storage failure, because failure append > > :-( . > > > > > > The current proposal around snapshots that reside on the primary > storage > > or > > > snapshots that end in the Secondary Storage is not to address any kind > > of > > > backups requirement because a snapshot is not a backup, event an > > extracted > > > VM snapshot. > > > > > > The main idea, and again this is for managed storage; > > > > > > 1. StorageSnapshotAPI: Provide storage side snapshot capability for > fast > > > response time that support rollback to previous timestamp, create new > > > volume and maybe create template. > > > not required to be a new API if the work is already done, I think > > this > > > is a different behaviors than the user expectation of a > volume-snapshot. > > > 2. VolumeSnapshotAPI: Provide current cloudstack behavior that create > an > > > extraction of a volume into SecondaryStorage which can be reuse to > > create a > > > new volume into another Primary Storage. This type of snapshot is a > slow > > > job since yes it would have to copy the full volume size on the > Secondary > > > storage. > > > > > > > > > PL > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mush...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think I share you view on the 'Ideal world'. Backup (via Volume > > > > Snapshots) is a huge bottleneck in Cloudstack. This is amplified > > > especially > > > > when you have a object storage as your secondary storage because it > > > > requires two copies (one to an NFS staging area and from there to > > object > > > > storage). And not to mention that all these copies are consuming > > > hypervisor > > > > resources. Xenserver's Dom0 is also a huge bottleneck as all the > > Network > > > > and I/O flow through it. So our intention of proposing the "Storage > > > > Snapshots" is to give a better way of achiving snapshots while still > > > > keeping the original definition of volume snpashots (ie upload to sec > > > > storage). > > > > > > > > But as Erik pointed out volume snapshots are not backups. They don't > > work > > > > form multi-disk LVM volume groups and dynamic disks. I am all in for > a > > > > better backup solution which handles these use cases and utilizes the > > > > storage's advanced features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Paul Angus < > paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In the beginning... there were CloudStack snapshots and they were > > > > actually > > > > > volume snapshots not hypervisor point-in-time snapshots. > > > > > Then VM snapshots were created (which are point-in-time hypervisor > > > > > snapshots) and we started referring to the original snapshots as > > volume > > > > > snapshots. > > > > > > > > > > CloudStack does not offer 'backups', but many people use volume > > > snapshots > > > > > as backups. However you can't in-place restore volume snapshots and > > if > > > > you > > > > > have a VM with multiple volumes, the volume snapshots must be done > in > > > > > series, meaning that the state across all of the volumes is > unlikely > > to > > > > be > > > > > consistent. > > > > > > > > > > 'Actual Backups' would enable all of the restore options which > users > > > > might > > > > > expect as well options as to where they might be stored. In my > ideal > > > > world > > > > > they would also be able to leverage back-end hardware (such as > > > Solidfire, > > > > > NetApp etc :) ) and software such as Veeam, Commvault etc to > > accelerate > > > > the > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > > Paul Angus > > > > > VP Technology , ShapeBlue > > > > > d: *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540* > > > > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> | m: > > > > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784> > > > > > e: *paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> | t: @cloudyangus* > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>%20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus> > | w: > > > > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK > > > > > Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. > > ShapeBlue > > > > > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is > operated > > > > under > > > > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is > a > > > > > company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from > > Shape > > > > > Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The > > Republic > > > of > > > > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. > > ShapeBlue > > > > is > > > > > a registered trademark. > > > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are > > > intended > > > > > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any > > views > > > > or > > > > > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not > > > necessarily > > > > > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are > > not > > > > the > > > > > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action > > > based > > > > > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact > the > > > > sender > > > > > if you believe you have received this email in error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Syed Mushtaq [mailto:syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>] > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:58 PM > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots > > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > > > > > When you say actual backups, how would it be different from the > > Volume > > > > > Snapshots that exist currently. My understanding is that Backups > end > > up > > > > in > > > > > Sec Storage whereas Snapshots are just a point-in-time state of > your > > > > volume > > > > > which can be restored back correct? > > > > > > > > > > -Syed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Paul Angus < > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Syed, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I understand it, the SolidFire plugin will export the snapshot > > to > > > > > > secondary storage if the user requests a template from the > snapshot > > > or > > > > > > wants to download the snapshot from the cloud. This is a good, > > > > > > pragmatic approach and yes Mike the SolidFire storage is super > > > > > > reliable and snapshots on SolidFire arrays take up next to no > > space. > > > > > > BUT I think that we are talking about a more general purpose API, > > and > > > > > > other storage systems may not be as awesome as Mike's. That's my > > > > > > concern. Also, the time to transfer for say 1TB to move from > > primary > > > > > > to sec storage and then create a VM template out of it may be too > > > long > > > > > for users. > > > > > > > > > > > > @Mike I don’t think 'we' use the term volume snapshot for backup, > > > it's > > > > > > just that users want to do backups and a volume snapshot is the > > only > > > > > > type of snapshot that copies the disk elsewhere and can be > > scheduled. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm 'pondering' the implications of enabling actual backups > > (through > > > > > > recognised backup providers) and the user requirements around > them > > > > > > (particularly restoration use cases) as a separate thread of > work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com> Paul Angus VP > > > Technology > > > > > > , ShapeBlue > > > > > > d: *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540* > > > > > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> | m: > > > > > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784> > > > > > > e: *paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> | t: @cloudyangus* > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> > %20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus> | w: > > > > > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK Shape Blue > > Ltd > > > > > > is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services > > > India > > > > > > LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under > > license > > > > > > from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a > > company > > > > > > incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape > > Blue > > > > > > Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic > > of > > > > > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. > > > > > > ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. > > > > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are > > > > > > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is > > > addressed. > > > > > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author > and > > do > > > > > > not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related > > > > > > companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, > you > > > > > > must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or > > > show > > > > > > it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have > > > > received > > > > > this email in error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Syed Mushtaq [mailto:syed1.mush...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>] > > > > > > Sent: 05 February 2016 15:31 > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the terminology confusion comes from AWS where they do > EBS > > > > > > snapshots backed up to S3 and CloudStack sort of followed that. > And > > > as > > > > > > an end user who is oblivious to the internals of my provider, my > > > > > > expectation would be something similar to what AWS as that is my > > > > > > biggest reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > To your point Mike, I agree that a Primary Storage failure on > > > > > > SolidFire is unlikely, there are other motivations for us to push > > > data > > > > > > to secondary storage. Primary storage (atleast for us) costs > > around 3 > > > > > > times as much as secondary storage and snapshots on primary > storage > > > > > > are rarely used (especially for some of our customers who do > daily > > > > > backups). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the weirdness is around terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For most systems I've worked on, a snapshot and a backup are > two > > > > > > > completely different things (but CloudStack has traditionally > > used > > > > > > > the term "volume snapshot" to mean backup). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will put in a SolidFire "plug" here and say, though, that if > > your > > > > > > > primary storage is running on SolidFire that it is unlikely > > you'll > > > > > > > encounter an issue where your primary storage goes offline (and > > > > > > > you'll even maintain your performance guarantees during failure > > > > > > > scenarios and upgrades, as well). That being the case, it is > less > > > > > > > useful to require a backup to Swift (but it's perfectly OK if > > > that's > > > > > > > what we want to do > > > > > > here). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Syed Mushtaq > > > > > > > <syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe with the current implementation of Snapshots on > > managed > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > (SolidFire) the snapshots are never exported to the secondary > > > > > storage. > > > > > > > > While this solves the problem of having snapshots taking > > forever > > > > > > > > to get to sec storage, this leaves us with a > > > > > > > huge > > > > > > > > liability if our primary storage goes down. We see snapshots > as > > > > > > > > our recovery path because we store them in Swift which is > > > reliable > > > > > > > > and resilient to failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With Storage snpashots our goal is to have Volume snapshots > > > always > > > > > > > > backed up to secondary storage and Storage Snapshots stay on > > the > > > > > > > > primary > > > > > > > storage. > > > > > > > > A provider could potentially mix both these and solve the > > problem > > > > > > > > that you mentioned where you want to meet user's expectation > > of a > > > > > > > > snapshot (ie backup to sec storage) while having an ability > to > > > > > > > > utilize faster sanpshots (i.e. on the device) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope this clarifies things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -Syed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Paul Angus > > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HI guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could someone point me to the Jira bug of FS for the > > > > > > > > > SAN-snapshot > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > in 4.6 which is mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my discussions with users and operators around > snapshots > > > > > > > > > I'd make > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > following observations: > > > > > > > > > a. 'users' use snapshots as backups (both long-term and > short > > > > > > > > > term) > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > the expectation that they can use them for recovery if > > > required. > > > > > > > > > b. operators fall back to snapshots if something has gone > > wrong > > > > > > > > > with primary storage. > > > > > > > > > c. users sometimes want to be able to export snapshots as > > well > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > new VMs from their snapshots > > > > > > > > > d. snapshots are a currently a massive pain for operators, > I > > > > > > > > > know at > > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > one public cloud who have snapshots which take 2 days to > > > > complete. > > > > > > > > > e. snapshots (as they are) can't be used for multiple LVM > > > disks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the process Mike has used in the SolidFire plugin > > (only > > > > > > > > > moving > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > disk image to secondary storage when you absolutely have > to) > > is > > > > > > > > > a very > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > and pragmatic solution. I wonder what problems an operator > > > might > > > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > > > if they have an issue with a given primary storage pool in > a > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > > (I > > > > > > > > > know that that is REALLY unlikely in the SolidFire case > Mike > > :) > > > > > > > > > ) And > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > the transfer from primary to secondary is slow, the time to > > > > > > > > > being able > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > create a template or export the volume will be slow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for me the issue is around making sure that the end > users > > > > > > > expectations > > > > > > > > > are met (while improving the speed/efficiency of the back > > end) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: ShapeBlue] <http://www.shapeblue.com> Paul Angus > VP > > > > > > > > > Technology , ShapeBlue > > > > > > > > > d: *+44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540* > > > > > > > > > > <+44%20203%20617%200528%20%7C%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> > > | > > > m: > > > > > > > > > *+44 7711 418784* <+44%207711%20418784> > > > > > > > > > e: *paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> | t: > @cloudyangus* > > > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> > %20%7C%20t:%20@cloudyangus> | w: > > > > > > > > > *www.shapeblue.com* <http://www.shapeblue.com> > > > > > > > > > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK Shape > > > Blue > > > > > > > > > Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue > > > > > > > > > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and > is > > > > > > > > > operated > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria > > Ltda > > > > > > > > > is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under > > > > > > > > > license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a > > company > > > > > > > > > registered by The Republic > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue > Ltd. > > > > > > > > > ShapeBlue > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > a registered trademark. > > > > > > > > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential > and > > > are > > > > > > > intended > > > > > > > > > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is > addressed. > > > > > > > > > Any views > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do > not > > > > > > > necessarily > > > > > > > > > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If > > you > > > > > > > > > are not > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any > > > > > > > > > action > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please > > > contact > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > sender > > > > > > > > > if you believe you have received this email in error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pd...@cloudops.com > <javascript:;>] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:56 PM > > > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of introducing a new API: StorageSnapshot for > > managed > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > because the VolumeSnapshot default, or expected, behavior > is > > to > > > > > > > > > archive snapshots into the Secondary Storage. So a > > > > > > > > > StorageSnapshot API would be > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > snapshot that remain on the managed storage appliance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quickly looking at the API doc and I don't see a strong > > > > > > > > > requirement for volume snapshots to be moved into secondary > > > > > > > > > storage. So, maybe StorageSnapshot API is not useful, but > > both > > > > > > > > > use cases are required. A snapshot that remain on the > managed > > > > > > > > > storage, and another type of > > > > > > > snapshot > > > > > > > > > that end up into the secondary storage. Since you've done a > > lot > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > work, > > > > > > > > > might easier to just add a parameter to the current > snapshot > > > API > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > trigger an extraction of the storage snapshot into the > > > secondary > > > > > > > storage? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that all sounds reasonable then - thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Syed Mushtaq < > > > > > > > syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> You are correct Mike in terms of the requirements. One > of > > > our > > > > > > > earlier > > > > > > > > > >> iterations on this was to have an argument to the create > > > > > > > > > >> snapshot > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > >> which decides whether to backup the volume to sec > storage > > > but > > > > > > > > > >> we realized it would make management of snapshots quite > > > messy > > > > > > > > > >> so we proposed a new api instead. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 8:29 PM Mike Tutkowski > > > > > > > > > >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Just to make sure I understand all the requirements > here: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 1) This relates only to managed storage (1:1 mapping > > > between > > > > > > > > > >>> a virtual disk and a backend SAN volume). > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 2) We want to take the current (introduced in 4.6) > > > > > > > > > >>> functionality, which creates a snapshot on the SAN, and > > > > > > > > > >>> extend it via a config option (or > > > > > > > > > >>> something) to not only take the SAN snapshot, but to > copy > > > > > > > > > >>> the underlying VHD (XenServer only) to NFS. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 3) The SAN snapshot is always taken. It's the backup to > > NFS > > > > > > > > > >>> that is optional. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 4) Templates can be created from the snapshot that's on > > the > > > > > > > > > >>> SAN (already works). > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 5) CloudStack volumes can be created from the snapshot > > > > > > > > > >>> that's on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>> SAN (already works as long as the new CloudStack volume > > > ends > > > > > > > > > >>> up on the same primary storage). > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Would we have a need for a storage snapshot API then or > > > > > > > > > >>> would that just be the standard volume snapshot without > > the > > > > > > > > > >>> backup to > > > > > > NFS? > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks! > > > > > > > > > >>> Mike > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Syed Mushtaq > > > > > > > > > >>> <syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Is it possible to have both functionalities (snapshot > on > > > > > > > > > >>>> SAN & Sec > > > > > > > > > >>>> Storage) coexist? Because Ideally, we would like to > have > > > > both. > > > > > > > > > >>>> For example, some of our customers want to implement > > their > > > > > > > > > >>>> own backup strategies and do encryption to their > backups > > > > > > > > > >>>> which is a perfect use case for Storage Snapshot while > > our > > > > > > > > > >>>> other customers will still keep using the standard > > volume > > > > > > snapshot. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> To keep things backward compatible, we can add a > setting > > > > > > > > > >>>> which > > > > > > > says > > > > > > > > > >>>> to not upload on secondary storage, because, after > all, > > > you > > > > > > > > > >>>> would take a SAN snapshot first when doing a Volume > > > > Snapshot. > > > > > > > > > >>>> You could stop the process there and not do the > upload. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think about this approach? > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >>>> -Syed > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > >>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> So, this is just me thinking out load here, but if a > > > given > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CloudStack cloud doesn't actually need to provide > both > > > the > > > > > > > ability > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to take a SAN snapshot and export it to NFS (if just > > > > > > > > > >>>>> taking a SAN snapshot is OK), then we might be able > to > > > get > > > > > > > > > >>>>> away with no new > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > >>>>> calls and simply implement a new custom snapshot > > strategy > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > >>>>> motion strategy to handle the case where the > CloudStack > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cloud > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > >>>>> want both a SAN snapshot and exported-to-NFS backup. > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In other words, the "default" behavior would be to > use > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>>>> snapshot strategy and data motion strategy that we > > > already > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have (the one that only takes a SAN snapshot). > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> If your CloudStack cloud, however, wants to take a > SAN > > > > > > > > > >>>>> snapshot and have the data exported to NFS, then we > > could > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have you manipulate a Swing config file to make use > of > > a > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new snapshot strategy and data motion strategy that > > > > > > > > > >>>>> performs both of these > > > > > > > > > activities. > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This way, the old behavior is still the default for > > > users, > > > > > > > > > >>>>> but CloudStack admins can change this behavior via > > > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Right...I think we will need to come up with a > viable > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> upgrade path or some reasonable way for them to move > > > from > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the old way to the new way (and some obvious way > that > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> they will know they need > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > do this). > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Syed Mushtaq < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm not really sure about the upgrade path however, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> customers who are using 4.6 and are on a managed > > > storage > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> would no longer have the same functionality with > > Volume > > > > > > Snapshots. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Syed Mushtaq < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> So if I understand correctly, currently taking a > > > Volume > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Snapshots of a volume on a managed storage keeps > it > > on > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the storage array. As a part of this feature, we > can > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> make sure > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Volume Snapshots on managed storage are uploaded > to > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> secondary storage. This would make the Volume > > Snapshot > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> feature behave the same regardless of the storage > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> (managed or > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> non-managed) And, for utilizing the efficient > > backend > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> storage > > > > > > > > > capabilities, we can use the new storage snapshots API. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Whatever we do here, we need to have a plan to > deal > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> with the fact that we already have a feature (in > > 4.6 > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> later) that allows you to use the existing > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> volume-snapshot APIs to create a volume snapshot > > (for > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> managed > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> storage) that resides on a backend SAN (using a > > > custom > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> snapshot strategy and a custom data motion > > strategy). > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> If these new APIs go in, then how should the > > original > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> implementation (present in 4.6 and later) be > > changed? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> If it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> changed, how do we support customers who are > > already > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> using > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> original volume-snapshot API to take snapshots > on a > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> backend > > > > > > > > SAN? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Mike > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Will Stevens < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wstev...@cloudops.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Will you be able to create a Template from a > > > > > > > StorageSnapshot? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If yes, will the template be stored in the > > secondary > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> storage like normal templates or will that be > > > handled > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> somehow on the > > > > > > > > > vendor side? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > w > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Syed Mushtaq < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> syed1.mush...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Will!!! > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Will Stevens < > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wstev...@cloudops.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I explicitly linked the Design Spec in the > Jira > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ticket because it was not clear in the > 'mention' > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> section because it shows as a page 'you do not > > > have > > > > > > permission to'. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS* > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J > 1S6 > > w > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Syed Ahmed > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <sah...@cloudops.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Design Spec: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Sto > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rageSnapshot++API > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira Ticket > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9 > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 27 > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We plan to propose a new set of APIs to do > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots on managed storage backends like > > > > SolidFire. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots on current managed storage stay on > > the > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> device which is contrary to what CloudStack > > calls > > > > > > snpshots. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But taking snapshots on storage and keeping > it > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there has its own advantages > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we would ideally like to have both ways of > > doing > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots. This proposal adds 4 new APIs to > > > create > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshots on backend storage. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think of this feature? I > would > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> love to have some feedback. I am working on > > > making > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the design > > > > > > > spec > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more concrete but wanted to have a high level > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback first before starting to work on it. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Syed > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski* > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 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 <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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 <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > >>> 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 <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > > > > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > > > > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > services: > > > > > > > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build > > > > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | > > > CSForge – > > > > > > > > > rapid IaaS deployment framework < > > http://shapeblue.com/csforge/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > CloudStack Consulting > > > > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | > > > > > > > > CloudStack > > > > > > > > > Software Engineering > > > > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > > > > > > > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support > > > > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> > | > > > > > > > > > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses > > > > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > > > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;> > > > > > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related > > > > > services: > > > > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – > > > rapid > > > > > > IaaS deployment framework <http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > > CloudStack > > > > > > Consulting <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | > > > CloudStack > > > > > > Software Engineering > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > > > > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support > > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | > > > CloudStack > > > > > > Bootcamp Training Courses < > > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related > > > > services: > > > > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – > > rapid > > > > > IaaS deployment framework <http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > > > > > CloudStack Consulting < > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> > > | > > > > CloudStack > > > > > Software Engineering > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > > > > > CloudStack Infrastructure Support > > > > > <http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | > > CloudStack > > > > > Bootcamp Training Courses < > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;> > > 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>*™*
