Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On 14 March 2014 03:07, sxmatch wrote: > So, if we delete volume really, just keep snapshot alive, is it possible? > User don't want to use this volume at now, he can take a snapshot and then > delete volume. > > If he want it again, can create volume from this snapshot. > > Any ideas? This has been discussed in various cinder meetings and summits multiple times. The end answer is 'no, we don't support that. If you want to keep the snapshot, you need to keep the volume too'. -- Duncan Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
于 2014-03-14 11:59, Zhangleiqiang (Trump) 写道: From: sxmatch [mailto:sxmatch1...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 11:08 AM To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump) Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection 于 2014-03-11 19:24, Zhangleiqiang 写道: From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: Hi all, Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the original volume is always visible for the users. So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original volume will be removed automatically. Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper layer instead of Cinder. For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, the user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this operation will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the original volume cannot be deleted, too. Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume is corrupted? If the snapshot of volume is COW, then the snapshot will be still sane when the base volume is corrupted. So, if we delete volume really, just keep snapshot alive, is it possible? User don't want to use this volume at now, he can take a snapshot and then delete volume. If we delete volume really, the COW snapshot cannot be used. But if the data in base volume is corrupt, we can use the snapshot normally or create an available volume from the snapshot. The "COW" means copy-on-write, when the data-block in base volume is being to written, this block will first copy to the snapshot. Hope it helps. Thanks for your explain,it's very helpful. If he want it again, can create volume from this snapshot. Any ideas? Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal is the right way to solve the problem. IMO, it simply violates what quota system is designed for and complicates quota metrics calculation (there would be actual quota which is only visible to admin/operator and an end-user facing quota). Why not contact operator to bump the upper limit of the volume quota instead? I had some misunderstanding on Cinder's snapshot. "Fake delete" is common if there is "chained snapshot" or "snapshot tree" mechanism. However in cinder, only volume can make snapshot but snapshot cannot make snapshot again. I agree with your bump upper limit method. Thanks for your explanation. Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John -Original Message- From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection Hi all, Current openstack p
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
之前百度的张磊强师兄？？ 你现在在华为搞open stack？ --- 韦远科 010 5881 3749 中国科学院 计算机网络信息中心 云计算平台：eccp.csdb.cn On 2014年3月6日, at 下午2:19, Zhangleiqiang wrote: > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
> From: sxmatch [mailto:sxmatch1...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 11:08 AM > To: Zhangleiqiang (Trump) > Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > > 于 2014-03-11 19:24, Zhangleiqiang 写道: > >> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37 PM > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume > >> delete protection > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang > >> > >> wrote: > >>>> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM > >>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume > >>>> delete protection > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need > >>>>> for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have > >> snapshot. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which > >>>>> have snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to > >>>>> only use the specific snapshot other than the original volume , > >>>>> because the original volume is always visible for the users. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have > >>>>> snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of > >>>>> the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original > >>>>> volume will be removed automatically. > >>>>> > >>>> Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow > >>>> why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only > >>>> use specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding > >>>> another layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at > >>>> upper layer > >> instead of Cinder. > >>> For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes > >>> and 1 > >> snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is > >> corrupted, the user will need to create a new volume from the > >> snapshot, but this operation will be failed because there are already > >> 5 volumes, and the original volume cannot be deleted, too. > >> Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume > >> is corrupted? > > If the snapshot of volume is COW, then the snapshot will be still sane when > the base volume is corrupted. > So, if we delete volume really, just keep snapshot alive, is it possible? User > don't want to use this volume at now, he can take a snapshot and then delete > volume. > If we delete volume really, the COW snapshot cannot be used. But if the data in base volume is corrupt, we can use the snapshot normally or create an available volume from the snapshot. The "COW" means copy-on-write, when the data-block in base volume is being to written, this block will first copy to the snapshot. Hope it helps. > If he want it again, can create volume from this snapshot. > > Any ideas? > > > >> Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal > >> is the right way to solve the problem. IMO, it simply violates what > >> quota system is designed for and complicates quota metrics > >> calculation (there would be actual quota which is only visible to > >> admin/operator and an end-user facing quota). Why not contact > >> operator to bump the upper limit of the volume quota instead? > > I had some misunderstanding on Cinder's snapshot. > > "Fake delete" is common if there is "chained snapshot" or "snapshot tree" > mechanism. However in cinder, only volume can make snapshot but snapshot > cannot make snapshot again. > > > > I agree with your bump upper limit method. > > > > Thanks for your exp
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
于 2014-03-11 19:24, Zhangleiqiang 写道: From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: Hi all, Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the original volume is always visible for the users. So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original volume will be removed automatically. Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper layer instead of Cinder. For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, the user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this operation will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the original volume cannot be deleted, too. Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume is corrupted? If the snapshot of volume is COW, then the snapshot will be still sane when the base volume is corrupted. So, if we delete volume really, just keep snapshot alive, is it possible? User don't want to use this volume at now, he can take a snapshot and then delete volume. If he want it again, can create volume from this snapshot. Any ideas? Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal is the right way to solve the problem. IMO, it simply violates what quota system is designed for and complicates quota metrics calculation (there would be actual quota which is only visible to admin/operator and an end-user facing quota). Why not contact operator to bump the upper limit of the volume quota instead? I had some misunderstanding on Cinder's snapshot. "Fake delete" is common if there is "chained snapshot" or "snapshot tree" mechanism. However in cinder, only volume can make snapshot but snapshot cannot make snapshot again. I agree with your bump upper limit method. Thanks for your explanation. Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John -Original Message- From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection Hi all, Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete miss. Such as: We can provide a safe delete for the volume. User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) when he deletes the volume. Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation and find back the volume. After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. Best regard
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On 11 March 2014 09:09, Zhangleiqiang wrote: > For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 > snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, > the user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this > operation will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the > original volume cannot be deleted, too. That original volume is still taking up disk space, so absolutely needs to be part of the quota and billing. We talked about allowing snapshots to exist when their origin volume is deleted in cinder (I was an advocate of it), but it turns out to be impossible on some backends without lots of data copying, and having a quota system that does not represent the actual resource usage is begging for s DoS attack. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang > wrote: > >> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume > >> delete protection > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang > >> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need > >> > for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have > snapshot. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have > >> > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only > >> > use the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because > >> > the original volume is always visible for the users. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have > >> > snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of > >> > the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original > >> > volume will be removed automatically. > >> > > >> Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow > >> why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use > >> specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another > >> layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper layer > instead of Cinder. > > > > For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 > snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, the > user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this operation > will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the original volume > cannot be deleted, too. > > > Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume is > corrupted? If the snapshot of volume is COW, then the snapshot will be still sane when the base volume is corrupted. > Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal > is the right way to solve the problem. IMO, it simply violates what quota > system is designed for and complicates quota metrics calculation (there would > be actual quota which is only visible to admin/operator and an end-user facing > quota). Why not contact operator to bump the upper limit of the volume > quota instead? I had some misunderstanding on Cinder's snapshot. "Fake delete" is common if there is "chained snapshot" or "snapshot tree" mechanism. However in cinder, only volume can make snapshot but snapshot cannot make snapshot again. I agree with your bump upper limit method. Thanks for your explanation. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > zhangleiqiang > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Best Regards > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM > >> > > >> > > >> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume > >> > delete protection > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > >> >> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public > >> >> IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual > >> >> servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the > >> >> server owner ca
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: >> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete >> protection >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > >> > >> > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for >> > introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. >> > >> > >> > >> > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have >> > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use >> > the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the >> > original volume is always visible for the users. >> > >> > >> > >> > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, >> > and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots >> > of the volume have already deleted, the original volume will be >> > removed automatically. >> > >> Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow why >> operator >> would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use specific version of >> snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another layer. If that's the case, >> the >> problem should be solved at upper layer instead of Cinder. > > For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 > snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, > the user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this > operation will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the > original volume cannot be deleted, too. > Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume is corrupted? Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal is the right way to solve the problem. IMO, it simply violates what quota system is designed for and complicates quota metrics calculation (there would be actual quota which is only visible to admin/operator and an end-user facing quota). Why not contact operator to bump the upper limit of the volume quota instead? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > zhangleiqiang >> > >> > >> > >> > Best Regards >> > >> > >> > >> > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM >> > >> > >> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume >> > delete protection >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt >> wrote: >> > >> > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: >> >> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public >> >> IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual >> >> servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server >> >> owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle >> >> that "deleted" virtual server. >> >> >> >> People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any >> >> idea here? >> > >> > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM >> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete >> >> protection >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. >> >> But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. >> >> >> >> As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuabl
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winsto...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for > > introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. > > > > > > > > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have > > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use > > the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the > > original volume is always visible for the users. > > > > > > > > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, > > and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots > > of the volume have already deleted, the original volume will be > > removed automatically. > > > Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow why > operator > would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use specific version of > snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another layer. If that's the case, > the > problem should be solved at upper layer instead of Cinder. For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1 snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, the user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this operation will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the original volume cannot be deleted, too. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > zhangleiqiang > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM > > > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume > > delete protection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt > wrote: > > > > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > >> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public > >> IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual > >> servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server > >> owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle > >> that "deleted" virtual server. > >> > >> People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any > >> idea here? > > > > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? > > > > John > > > > > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > >> protection > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > >> But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > >> > >> As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > >> So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume > >> delete miss. > >> > >> Such as: > >> We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > >> User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually > >> deleted) when he deletes the volume. > >> Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete > >> operation and find back the volume. > >> After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the > >> system. > >> > >> Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > >> > >> Best regards to you. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> zhangleiqiang > >> > >> Best Regards > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> OpenStack-dev m
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
I think the workflow management might be a better place to solve your problem, if I understood correctly On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Huang Zhiteng wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for > > introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. > > > > > > > > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have > > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use the > > specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the original > > volume is always visible for the users. > > > > > > > > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, > and > > mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots of the > > volume have already deleted, the original volume will be removed > > automatically. > > > Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow > why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use > specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another > layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper > layer instead of Cinder. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > zhangleiqiang > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM > > > > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > > protection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt > wrote: > > > > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > >> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > >> QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > >> to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is > >> deleted, the server owner can decide whether > >> or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual > server. > >> > >> People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any > idea > >> here? > > > > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? > > > > John > > > > > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > >> protection > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > >> But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation > miss. > >> > >> As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > >> So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume > delete > >> miss. > >> > >> Such as: > >> We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > >> User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually > >> deleted) when he deletes the volume. > >> Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete > >> operation and find back the volume. > >> After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the > >> system. > >> > >> Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > >> > >> Best regards to you. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> zhangleiqiang > >> > >> Best Regards > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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 mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should > file a > > BP that we can target for Juno. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Regards > Huang Zhiteng > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for > introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. > > > > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use the > specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the original > volume is always visible for the users. > > > > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, and > mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots of the > volume have already deleted, the original volume will be removed > automatically. > Can you describe the actual use case for this? I not sure I follow why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use specific version of snapshot. It sounds like you are adding another layer. If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper layer instead of Cinder. > > > > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > > > > > > > -- > > zhangleiqiang > > > > Best Regards > > > > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM > > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: >> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, >> QingCloud, has provided a similar feature >> to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is >> deleted, the server owner can decide whether >> or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. >> >> People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea >> here? > > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? > > John > > >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete >> protection >> >> Hi all, >> >> Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. >> But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. >> >> As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. >> So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete >> miss. >> >> Such as: >> We can provide a safe delete for the volume. >> User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually >> deleted) when he deletes the volume. >> Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete >> operation and find back the volume. >> After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the >> system. >> >> Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. >> >> Best regards to you. >> >> >> -- >> zhangleiqiang >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a > BP that we can target for Juno. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Regards Huang Zhiteng ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
Hi all, Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have snapshot. Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only use the specific snapshot other than the original volume , because the original volume is always visible for the users. So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original volume will be removed automatically. Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com>> wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) mailto:zhangy...@huawei.com>> wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, > the server owner can decide whether > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang > [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com<mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com>] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a BP that we can target for Juno. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
do a code review and found a function _reclaim_queued_deletes will do the
soft_delete reclaim
if you set reclaim_instance_interval > 0 , then delete will be soft_delete
and it will be reclaimed if it's old enough
by default reclaim_instance_interval is 0, so delete will be hard delete ,
user can trigger a force_delete action should delete the instance right now
Best Regards!
Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨
Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL
Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet: jiche...@cn.ibm.com
Phone: +86-10-82454158
Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian District,
Beijing 100193, PRC
From: "zhangyu (AI)"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
,
Date: 03/07/2014 09:09 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume
delete protection
After looking into Nova code base, I found there is surely a soft_delete()
method in the ComputeDriver() class. Furthermore,
Xenapi (and only Xenapi) has implemented this method, which finally applies
a hard_shutdown_vm() operation to the instance to be deleted.
If I understand it correctly, it means the instance is in fact shutdown,
instead of being deleted. Later, the user can decide whether to restore it
or not.
My question is that, when and how is the soft_deleted instance truly
deleted? A user needs to trigger a real delete operation on it explicitly,
doesn't he?
Not for sure why other drivers, especially libvirt, did not implement such
a feature...
Thanks~
-Original Message-
From: John Garbutt [mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:13 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete
protection
On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote:
> It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public
> IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual
> servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server
owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that
"deleted" virtual server.
>
> People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any
idea here?
Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar?
John
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete
> protection
>
> Hi all,
>
> Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user.
> But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss.
>
> As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable.
> So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete
miss.
>
> Such as:
> We can provide a safe delete for the volume.
> User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually
deleted) when he deletes the volume.
> Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete
operation and find back the volume.
> After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the
system.
>
> Any thoughts? Welcome any advices.
>
> Best regards to you.
>
>
> --
> zhangleiqiang
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 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 mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
Agree with you and thanks for your advice, :) -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards From: Alex Meade [mailto:mr.alex.me...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 12:09 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection Just so everyone is aware. Glance supports 'delayed deletes' where image data will not actually be deleted at the time of the request. Glance also has the concept of 'protected images', which allows for setting an image as protected, preventing it from being deleted until the image is intentionally set to unprotected. This avoids any actual deletion of prized images. Perhaps cinder could emulate that behavior or improve upon it for volumes. -Alex On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, zhangyu (AI) mailto:zhangy...@huawei.com>> wrote: Got it. Many thanks! Leiqiang, you can take action now :) From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com<mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com>] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com>> wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) mailto:zhangy...@huawei.com>> wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, > the server owner can decide whether > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang > [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com<mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com>] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a BP that we can target for Juno. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
OK. We have proposed a blueprint here. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/volume-delete-protect Thanks. -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com>> wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) mailto:zhangy...@huawei.com>> wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, > the server owner can decide whether > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang > [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com<mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com>] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a BP that we can target for Juno. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
After looking into Nova code base, I found there is surely a soft_delete() method in the ComputeDriver() class. Furthermore, Xenapi (and only Xenapi) has implemented this method, which finally applies a hard_shutdown_vm() operation to the instance to be deleted. If I understand it correctly, it means the instance is in fact shutdown, instead of being deleted. Later, the user can decide whether to restore it or not. My question is that, when and how is the soft_deleted instance truly deleted? A user needs to trigger a real delete operation on it explicitly, doesn't he? Not for sure why other drivers, especially libvirt, did not implement such a feature... Thanks~ -Original Message- From: John Garbutt [mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:13 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public > IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual > servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server owner > can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" > virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > 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 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
Just so everyone is aware. Glance supports 'delayed deletes' where image data will not actually be deleted at the time of the request. Glance also has the concept of 'protected images', which allows for setting an image as protected, preventing it from being deleted until the image is intentionally set to unprotected. This avoids any actual deletion of prized images. Perhaps cinder could emulate that behavior or improve upon it for volumes. -Alex On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > Got it. Many thanks! > > > > Leiqiang, you can take action now J > > > > *From:* John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is > deleted, the server owner can decide whether > > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual > server. > > > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any > idea here? > > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? > > John > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > > > Hi all, > > > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume > delete miss. > > > > Such as: > > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually > deleted) when he deletes the volume. > > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete > operation and find back the volume. > > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the > system. > > > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > > > Best regards to you. > > > > > > -- > > zhangleiqiang > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file > a BP that we can target for Juno. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
Got it. Many thanks! Leiqiang, you can take action now :) From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com>> wrote: On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) mailto:zhangy...@huawei.com>> wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, > the server owner can decide whether > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang > [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com<mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com>] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a BP that we can target for Juno. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is > deleted, the server owner can decide whether > > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual > server. > > > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any > idea here? > > Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? > > John > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete > protection > > > > Hi all, > > > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume > delete miss. > > > > Such as: > > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually > deleted) when he deletes the volume. > > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete > operation and find back the volume. > > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the > system. > > > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > > > Best regards to you. > > > > > > -- > > zhangleiqiang > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea. You should file a BP that we can target for Juno. Thanks, John ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) wrote: > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, > QingCloud, has provided a similar feature > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, > the server owner can decide whether > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. > > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea > here? Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar? John > > -Original Message- > From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection > > Hi all, > > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. > > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete > miss. > > Such as: > We can provide a safe delete for the volume. > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) > when he deletes the volume. > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation > and find back the volume. > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. > > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. > > Best regards to you. > > > -- > zhangleiqiang > > Best Regards > > > > ___ > 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 mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection
It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS, QingCloud, has provided a similar feature to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is deleted, the server owner can decide whether or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual server. People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any idea here? Thanks! -Original Message- From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqi...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete protection Hi all, Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user. But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss. As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable. So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume delete miss. Such as: We can provide a safe delete for the volume. User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually deleted) when he deletes the volume. Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete operation and find back the volume. After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the system. Any thoughts? Welcome any advices. Best regards to you. -- zhangleiqiang Best Regards ___ 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
