OK, then - perfect. I agree with this approach. Global setting's value for volume snapshots on managed storage:
Default value: Volume snapshot on managed storage = storage snapshot Non-default value: Take snapshot on primary storage, but move it to NFS. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct. Keeping the snapshot on managed storage should be the default > behaviour as it will not break backward compatibility. > > -Syed > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > I think so. > > > > Just to confirm: The default behavior for a volume snapshot with managed > > storage is equivalent to a storage snapshot. > > > > When the global setting value is changed, the data ends up on secondary > > storage (NFS). > > > > Is that accurate? > > > > On Friday, February 12, 2016, Syed Mushtaq <syed1.mush...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Situation: Global setting value is changed to a non-default value. > > > > > > > > 2) Action: Volume snapshot is taken with managed storage. Result: ??? > > I'm > > > > not sure which scenario we're looking at here now. > > > > > > > > > > In this situation, volume snapshots will end up on secondary storage > and > > > the snapshot on the managed storage will be deleted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Action: Storage snapshot is taken with managed storage. Result: > ??? > > > I'm > > > > not sure which scenario we're looking at here now. > > > > > > > > > > In this situation, the snapshot stays on the managed storage. > > > > > > Does this answer your question Mike? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Syed, > > > > > > > > Can you clarify how you see these behaviors (below) working now that > we > > > are > > > > considering a global settings value applicable to managed storage > with > > > > volume snapshots? > > > > > > > > State: Global setting value defaults to keep snapshot on storage > system > > > > (primary storage) for managed storage. > > > > > > > > 1) Action: Volume snapshot is taken with managed storage. Result: > > > Snapshot > > > > is taken and kept on storage system (primary storage). (This is what > > you > > > > and I have been working on for a couple months now.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Syed Mushtaq < > syed1.mush...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree with Mike's concern about backward compatibility. We can > add > > a > > > > > global flag which makes sure that the way volume snapshots work > > > currently > > > > > on managed storage (stay on the device) is retained after upgrade. > We > > > can > > > > > then safely implement the Storage Snapshot API while making the > > Volume > > > > > Snpashot API move the snapshot to Secondary Storage. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good guys? > > > > > > > > > > -Syed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what we have for snapshots for managed storage as of 4.6, > > > Paul: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. VM snapshots (no proposed changes to this). > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Volume snapshots that do not end up on secondary storage, but > > > rather > > > > > are > > > > > > stored on a SAN (effectively storing snapshots on primary > storage). > > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre-Luc is saying he'd like this for snapshots for managed > > > storage: > > > > > > > > > > > > A. VM snapshots (no proposed changes to this). > > > > > > > > > > > > B. Volume snapshots that export to secondary storage. > > > > > > > > > > > > C. New: Storage snapshots that behave like 2 (above). > > > > > > > > > > > > I like Pierre-Luc's ideas there, but the problem is backward > > > > > compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > If customers who were using managed storage with volume snapshots > > in > > > > 4.6 > > > > > > were getting their snapshots put on a SAN, then in 4.9 - all of a > > > > sudden > > > > > - > > > > > > their new snapshots are put on secondary storage (unless they > > > > explicitly > > > > > > change over to using the new Storage snapshots feature). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Paul Angus < > > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to make sure I'm on the same page, are we talking about; > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9278 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The FS reads (to me) more like 1a + the possibility to export > to > > > > > > secondary > > > > > > > storage if required? > > > > > > > Have I understood correctly? > > > > > > > I have seen [1a] implemented for VMware by NetApp in their beta > > > > > > CloudStack > > > > > > > plugin (pleased I can say that without Mike beating me up now). > > No > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > to the CloudStack API were required. (nb it didn't export to > > > > secondary > > > > > > > storage). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. VM Snapshot (point-in-time hypervisor based snapshots) > > > > > > > 1a. SAN assisted VM snapshots (point-in-time hypervisor > snapshot > > > > takes > > > > > > > place on transparently SAN to avoid performance issue in disk > > > chains) > > > > > > > 2. SAN Snapshot (Storage Snapshot) - NEW > > > > > > > 3. Volume Snapshot (current old/slow transfer to secstorage) > > > > > > > 4. Backup - JUST AN IDEAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 | t: @cloudyangus* > > > > > > > <paul.an...@shapeblue.com%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: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 7:16 PM > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Propose][New Feature] Storage Snapshots > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct, Will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Global Settings would only be for managed storage. > > Non-managed > > > > > > > (traditional) volume snapshots are completely un-impacted by > this > > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we need to sometimes keep the snapshots on the SAN and > > sometimes > > > > > push > > > > > > > them to secondary storage, we'll need a more robust solution > than > > > > > Global > > > > > > > Settings, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Will Stevens < > > > wstev...@cloudops.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I missed a bit of context when I responded. The global > > > > setting > > > > > > > > would be only for the managed storage case, currently being > > > called > > > > > > > Storage > > > > > > > > Snapshots, and is only to determine if a copy is pushed to > > > > secondary > > > > > > > > storage right? The global setting would not change the > behavior > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > Volume Snapshots right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was referring to the need for Volume Snapshots and Storage > > > > > Snapshots > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > exist together. Disregard my comment. I caught up on context > > > after > > > > I > > > > > > > > posted. My bad... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Will STEVENS* > > > > > > > > Lead Developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > > > > > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > > > > > > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Will, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who's picking the behavior? Is it the cloud provider or the > > end > > > > > user? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Will Stevens < > > > > > wstev...@cloudops.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think a global setting is a good option because > we > > > need > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > > functionality to be available at the same time and for > > > > different > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > cases > > > > > > > > > > to be able to pick which they choose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Will STEVENS* > > > > > > > > > > Lead Developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > > > > > > > > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > > > > > > > > > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that I re-read your e-mail, it dawned on me: The > > > end-user > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > care > > > > > > > > > > > where the snapshot is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that's true, then we should perhaps control this via > > > > Global > > > > > > > > Settings > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > > > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not ideal - true, but it does allow us to be > > > backward > > > > > > > > > compatible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have other ideas, though, about how to > maintain > > > > > backward > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility, I'm definitely open to hear them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Syed Mushtaq < > > > > > > > > > syed1.mush...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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<> > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: Shape > > > > > > > > -- > > *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>*™* > > > -- *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>*™*
