On 18 May 2014 12:32, Murali Balcha <murali.bal...@triliodata.com> wrote: > Hi, > I did a design session on Friday though my proposal was to capture the > delta as qcow2. Here is the link to ether pad notes. > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cinder-changed-block-list > > > Do you see synergies between what you are proposing and my proposal? > Shouldn¹t we standardize on one format for all backups? I believe Cinder > backup API currently uses JSON based list with pointers to all swift > objects that make up the backup data of a volume.
I think the problem being referred to in this thread is that the backup code assumes the *source* is a raw volume. The destination (i.e. swift) should absolutely remain universal across all volume back-ends - a JSON list with pointers. The JSON file is versioned, so there is scope to add more to it (like we did volume metadata), but I don't want to see QCOW or similar going into swift. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
