Cinder has, and probably will, continue to resist operations that are only added so that some other operation can be done while 'keeping the volume UID'. It is not a cloud mentality, and it leads to increased code complexity and in several cases risk of data loss within cinder.
On 9 November 2015 at 10:21, Zhenyu Zheng <zhengzhenyul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply, for some scenario, launching an new instance is > easier. But for production deployment, an instance may contain a large > number of data such as keypairs, metadata, bdm etc. and it may have > multiple internet interfaces that are connected to multiple networks. That > is to say, for operations like recovery, change/update operating system, to > build an new instance is a lot more "expensive" than rebuild it. And one > instance may have some volumes that are marked as delete_on_terminate = > True, if that is the situation, build an new instance will not save the > user data in user volume, but rebuild can protect them. > > So, I think this is a quite reasonable demand for OpenStack. > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > >> Excerpts from Zhenyu Zheng's message of 2015-11-08 23:04:59 -0800: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > Currently, we have strong demands about "rebuilding"(or actions like >> > rebuilding) volume-backed instances. As in production deployment, volume >> > backed instance is widely used. Users have the demands of performing the >> > rebuild(recovery) action for root device while maintain instance UUID >> sorts >> > of information, many users also wants to keep the volume uuid unchanged. >> > >> > Nova side doesn't support using Rebuild API directly for volume backed >> > instances (the volume will not change). And Nova side also doesn't >> support >> > detaching root device, that means we cannot performing volume >> > backup/restore from cinder side, because those actions needs the volume >> in >> > "available" status. >> > >> > Now there are couple of patches proposed in nova trying to fix this >> problem: >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201458/ >> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/221732/ >> > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223887/ >> > >> > [1] and [2] are trying to expose the API of detaching root devices, [3] >> is >> > trying to fix it in the current Rebuild API. But yet none of them got >> much >> > attention. >> > >> > As we now have strong demand on performing the "rebuilding" action for >> > volume-backed instances, and yet there is not any clear information >> about >> > it. I wonder is there any plans of how to support it in Nova and >> Cinder? >> > >> >> This seems entirely misguided by the users. >> >> Why not just boot a new instance on a new volume with the same image? >> Names can be the same.. UUID's should never be anything except a physical >> handle. >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- -- Duncan Thomas
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
