Hi Mike,
Adding a flag to createSnapshot was the first and the most obvious thing
that came to our minds. The problem that I had with this was that:
1) I feel it is exposing something to the end user that is internal to the
cloud.
2) We have to follow two different ways of restore/deletion in the same
code path depending on where the Snapshot resides which I find kind of a
bad design.
But if exposing a archive flag to the end user is acceptable then we can
definitely use this instead of adding the StorageSnapshot API
Thanks,
-Syed
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> wrote:
> Hi Pierre-Luc,
>
> My recommendation would be this:
>
> Add an "archive" flag to the current volume-snapshot API. Its default would
> be "false" because that would be backward compatible with how 4.6 has
> volume snapshots implemented (i.e. they stay on the SAN in 4.6, 4.7, and
> 4.8).
>
> If you set archive=true, then we would perform a background migration of
> the snapshot from the SAN to the secondary storage (then delete the SAN
> snapshot).
>
> That archive parameter would only be valid for managed storage.
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> Also, a VM snapshot that includes disks provided by managed storage should
> work.
>
> Talk to you later,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > In terms of API's, would you prefer introducing a parameter to the
> existing
> > VolumeSnapshot, example: extract={true|false} with a default value of
> > true which would extract snapshot into the secondary storage, which is
> the
> > current default behavior. Then for SAN snapshot that remain on the SAN we
> > would just set "extract=false" ? as oppose to create a new
> > StorageSnapshot API ?
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > From what I'm seeing so far, we can't do a VM-snapshot when using managed
> > storage for VM having more than one Volume. For the reason that snapshot
> > are performed outside of the hypervisor awareness and asynchronously. If
> > someone have a way to address that, it would make thinks much more
> > attractive.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Ian Rae <i...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think a service provider backup scenario is more likely to take
> > advantage
> > > of SAN snapshot. There are a few reasons for this. Traditional backups
> > > involve access to the file system, and there is an expectation that
> this
> > > can be done with reasonably short time frames without negatively
> > impacting
> > > VM performance, and that the backup orchestrator can apply various
> logic
> > > and or transformations to the data (compress, encrypt, deltas etc...).
> > > While it is true that one could apply a backup process to a cloud
> > snapshot,
> > > this would be slow and inefficient requiring the data to be moved
> several
> > > times and there are some major bottlenecks with cloud snapshots. With a
> > > cloud snapshot - there seems to be no reasonable expectation of being
> > able
> > > to do differential snapshots (I think this depends on the hypervisor)
> and
> > > if you do differential snapshots this will make file backups from those
> > > snapshots even more complicated to orchestrate.
> > >
> > > Suspect there needs to be a different thread on how to better enable
> > > backups, as a service. As per Paul's suggestion, but it is a related
> > > workflow so relevant to this discussion.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > > On Monday, February 8, 2016, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > <javascript:;>> 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:;> <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:;>
> > > > > <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:;>
> > > > > <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:;> <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:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > |
> > > > t: @cloudyangus*
> > > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>
> > > > <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:;> <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:58 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> <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:;> <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:;>
> > <javascript:;> |
> > > > t: @cloudyangus*
> > > > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> <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:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: 05 February 2016 15:31
> > > > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > <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:;>
> > <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:;>
> <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:;>
> > <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:;>
> > > > <javascript:;> | t:
> > > > > @cloudyangus*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>
> > > <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:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 12:56 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;> <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Will!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Will
> > > Stevens
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wstev...@cloudops.com <javascript:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;> <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>*™*
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ian Rae
> > > CEO | PDG
> > > c: 514.944.4008
> > >
> > > CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
> > > www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *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>*™*
>
