if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform swiftstack: http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > Edison, > > Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use in > order to store files larger than 5 GB. Therefore, using the Swift's S3 > compatibility layer is not a viable workaround. > > Thanks, > -John > > [1]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM >>> To: Edison Su >>> Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in >>> 4.2? >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM >>>>> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su >>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in >>> 4.2? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is >>>>>>> that, we only >>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now. >>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the >>>>>>> community, do >>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will >>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the >>> integration? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this? >>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. >>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them >>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path. >>>>>> >>>>>> --David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edison, How broken is it? Is it shorter to fix or revert the object >>>>> store changes? >>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or >>>> not, as >>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like? I mean, just because >>> it >> >> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to >> support Swift. >> But who will make the decision? >> >>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that >>> it >>> wasn't working. As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack >>> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of >>> that feature. >>> >>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to >>> do. I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support". If necessary, I'd say >>> that >>> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge... I don't want to see >>> that happen though. That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it. >>> >>> -chip >
