Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

On 11/11/15 at 07:48pm, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-11-11 11:25:09 -0600 (-0600), Chris Friesen wrote: I didn't think that the overhead of deleting/creating an instance was *that* much different than rebuilding an instance. Do you have any information about where the "significant performance

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

> Unfortunately, you're trying to work around misuse of the cloud API's, not > missing features from them. Don't use those volume types, and don't build > systems that rely on single ports and interfaces. IMO rebuild is a misguided > concept (something that took me a long time to realize).

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

On 11/11/2015 11:01 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote: Unfortunately, you're trying to work around misuse of the cloud API's, not missing features from them. Don't use those volume types, and don't build systems that rely on single ports and interfaces. IMO rebuild is a misguided concept

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

Excerpts from Murray, Paul (HP Cloud)'s message of 2015-11-11 09:01:16 -0800: > > Unfortunately, you're trying to work around misuse of the cloud API's, not > > missing features from them. Don't use those volume types, and don't build > > systems that rely on single ports and interfaces. IMO

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

On 2015-11-11 11:25:09 -0600 (-0600), Chris Friesen wrote: > I didn't think that the overhead of deleting/creating an instance was *that* > much different than rebuilding an instance. > > Do you have any information about where the "significant performance > advantage" was coming from? The main

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

Excerpts from Zhenyu Zheng's message of 2015-11-09 00:21:23 -0800: > 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 >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: > Hi, thanks all for replying, sorry I might be a bit unclear. > > We have user demands that we only change the root device of an > volume-backed instance for upper layer services. It's not cloudy but it is > quite

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

On 9 November 2015 at 09:04, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: > 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. > > It might be of

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

Hi Zheng, comments inline... On 11/09/2015 02:04 AM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

Hi, thanks all for replying, sorry I might be a bit unclear. We have user demands that we only change the root device of an volume-backed instance for upper layer services. It's not cloudy but it is quite common. And changing OS is another demand that sort of related to this. Cinder supports

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

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

[openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] About rebuilding volume-backed instances.

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