Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder] hope to get any feedback about delay delete volume
On 06/13/2014 11:03 AM, John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: > >> Please don't send review requests to the openstack-dev list. The >> correct procedure is outlined here: >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html >> >> Thanks. >> >> -Ben >> >> On 06/12/2014 10:20 PM, Yuzhou (C) wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have submit a blueprint about deferred deletion for volumes in >> cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97034/ >>> >>> The implements of deferred deletion for volumes will introduce some >> complexity, to this point, there are different options in stackers. So we >> would like to get some feedback from anyone, particularly cloud operators. >>> >>> Here, I introduce the importance of deferred deletion for volumes >> again. >>> Currently in cinder, calling the API of deleting volume means the >> volume will be deleted immediately. If the user specify a wrong volume by >> mistake, the data in the volume may be lost forever. To avoid this, I hope >> to add a deferred deletion mechanism for volumes. So for a certain amount >> of time, volumes can be restored after the user find a misuse of deleting >> volume. >>> Moreover, there are deferred deletion implements for instance in >> nova and image in glance, I think it is very common feature to protected >> important resource. >>> So I think deferred deletion for volumes is valuable, it seems to >> me that should be sufficient. >>> >>> Welcome your feedback and suggestions! >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Zhou Yu >>> >>> ___ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > Ben, > > I believe Zhou Yu is actually seeking input from the broader community on > the feature itself; not the review. > > I wasn't overly enthusiastic about adding the feature and to me the > argument of "instances do it" isn't necessarily the best reason to do > something. I'm torn on whether I think it's a good feature to implement or > not given that I think there are some complexities it introduces that may > not be worthwhile. > > Anyway, I'm fairly open to hearing more input (maybe from some users in the > community?) to get some input on how valuable or needed this feature > actually is. > > Thanks, > John > Okay, sorry for the noise then. It sounded like a review request, but if the point was to bring the discussion to a wider audience then that is obviously fine. -Ben ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder] hope to get any feedback about delay delete volume
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: > Please don't send review requests to the openstack-dev list. The > correct procedure is outlined here: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html > > Thanks. > > -Ben > > On 06/12/2014 10:20 PM, Yuzhou (C) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have submit a blueprint about deferred deletion for volumes in > cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97034/ > > > > The implements of deferred deletion for volumes will introduce some > complexity, to this point, there are different options in stackers. So we > would like to get some feedback from anyone, particularly cloud operators. > > > > Here, I introduce the importance of deferred deletion for volumes > again. > > Currently in cinder, calling the API of deleting volume means the > volume will be deleted immediately. If the user specify a wrong volume by > mistake, the data in the volume may be lost forever. To avoid this, I hope > to add a deferred deletion mechanism for volumes. So for a certain amount > of time, volumes can be restored after the user find a misuse of deleting > volume. > > Moreover, there are deferred deletion implements for instance in > nova and image in glance, I think it is very common feature to protected > important resource. > > So I think deferred deletion for volumes is valuable, it seems to > me that should be sufficient. > > > > Welcome your feedback and suggestions! > > > > Thanks. > > > > Zhou Yu > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > Ben, I believe Zhou Yu is actually seeking input from the broader community on the feature itself; not the review. I wasn't overly enthusiastic about adding the feature and to me the argument of "instances do it" isn't necessarily the best reason to do something. I'm torn on whether I think it's a good feature to implement or not given that I think there are some complexities it introduces that may not be worthwhile. Anyway, I'm fairly open to hearing more input (maybe from some users in the community?) to get some input on how valuable or needed this feature actually is. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder] hope to get any feedback about delay delete volume
Please don't send review requests to the openstack-dev list. The correct procedure is outlined here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html Thanks. -Ben On 06/12/2014 10:20 PM, Yuzhou (C) wrote: > Hi all, > > I have submit a blueprint about deferred deletion for volumes in cinder: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97034/ > > The implements of deferred deletion for volumes will introduce some > complexity, to this point, there are different options in stackers. So we > would like to get some feedback from anyone, particularly cloud operators. > > Here, I introduce the importance of deferred deletion for volumes > again. > Currently in cinder, calling the API of deleting volume means the volume > will be deleted immediately. If the user specify a wrong volume by mistake, > the data in the volume may be lost forever. To avoid this, I hope to add a > deferred deletion mechanism for volumes. So for a certain amount of time, > volumes can be restored after the user find a misuse of deleting volume. > Moreover, there are deferred deletion implements for instance in nova and > image in glance, I think it is very common feature to protected important > resource. > So I think deferred deletion for volumes is valuable, it seems to me > that should be sufficient. > > Welcome your feedback and suggestions! > > Thanks. > > Zhou Yu > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder] hope to get any feedback about delay delete volume
Hi all, I have submit a blueprint about deferred deletion for volumes in cinder: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97034/ The implements of deferred deletion for volumes will introduce some complexity, to this point, there are different options in stackers. So we would like to get some feedback from anyone, particularly cloud operators. Here, I introduce the importance of deferred deletion for volumes again. Currently in cinder, calling the API of deleting volume means the volume will be deleted immediately. If the user specify a wrong volume by mistake, the data in the volume may be lost forever. To avoid this, I hope to add a deferred deletion mechanism for volumes. So for a certain amount of time, volumes can be restored after the user find a misuse of deleting volume. Moreover, there are deferred deletion implements for instance in nova and image in glance, I think it is very common feature to protected important resource. So I think deferred deletion for volumes is valuable, it seems to me that should be sufficient. Welcome your feedback and suggestions! Thanks. Zhou Yu ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
