Chip, There don't appear to have been any updates to the review since 7 Dec 2012. What the status of getting further review?
In addition to submitting the review request, I have also opened a enhancement ticket in JIRA [1] and created a design document in the wiki [2]. How do we go about getting this feature placed on the 4.1.0 roadmap [3]? Thanks for your help, -John [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-509 [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/S3-backed+Secondary+Storage [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+4.1+Release On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >> Chiradeep, >> >> Please see my responses in-line below. >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:33 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I must give kudos on the document >>> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/S3-backed+Secondary >>> +Storage ). Quite complete >>> >>> If the intent is to make immutable assets (templates etc) visible across >>> all zones: >>> 1. Does the template_zone_ref table still make sense? Is it automatically >>> updated? >> >> Yes, the template_zone_ref table is still required. Templates and ISOs must >> be attached to a zone. From my understanding of the system design, removing >> this requirement would require a fundamental data model/architectural >> change. Therefore, cross zone templates are supported by creating a row in >> the template_zone_ref table associating the template to the zone. These >> propigation operations are performed upon template and zone creation. This >> behavior pre-dates this patch. This patch automates the operation of >> propagating the data across zones. >> >> I have updated the data model section of the design document to describe the >> data flow and role of each table. >> >>> 2. If I request a vm deployment from a template in a zone that has not yet >>> sync'ed, what is the behavior? >> >> The short answer is that S3 download behaves similarly to Swift downloads. >> Templates and ISOs are downloaded from S3 to NFS on-demand. When a template >> is not found in the NFS volume, the system will attempt to downloaded it >> from S3. As noted in the design download, this on-demand behavior may >> create a slight lag when a template is initially accessed in a zone >> dependent on the available bandwidth between the SSVM and the S3-compatible >> store. >> >>> 3. If I add a zone is the sync automatic to the new zone >> >> Yes, per the template propagation and on-demand download behaviors described >> above, templates and ISOs will automatically be available in a newly created >> zones. >> >> I explained this process in the Architecture/Design section, and have >> updated it based on on my response here. Please let me know if it is needs >> further clarification. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/12 10:51 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I have submitted the initial revision of a patch to support S3 backing >>>> NFS secondary storage (https://reviews.apache.org/r/8123/). I have >>>> opened ticket CLOUDSTACK-509 to track the testing and delivery of the >>>> enhancement. I have also created a design document in the wiki roughly >>>> following design document template. Since I am not a committer, it did >>>> not seem appropriate for me to add a reference from the roadmap to the >>>> ticket. >>>> >>>> In its current state, I have tested the single zone template and ISO >>>> functionality on devcloud. I am working to configure a multi-zone >>>> integration testing environment to complete all test scenarios outlined >>>> in the design document. My plan is to refine the arch per community >>>> patch concurrently with the completion of integration testing and bug >>>> squashing. >>>> >>>> I look forward to your feedback, >>>> -John >>> >> >> > > Edison, Chiradeep, Rohit - > > Can you guys spend some time on the latest proposed patch [1] to see > if the outstanding issues / questions have been resolved? If it looks > good, we should get the changes committed to the master branch. I'd > like to get this feature into the 4.1.0-incubating release. > > -chip > > [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/8123/
