You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> on 2012/07/30 12:23:44 UTC
Local storage support for data volumes
Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage. This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
Thanks,
Koushik
[1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>.
Yes, this bug tracks for keeping it at zone level...so either don't close the bug saying that there is more work left or file another enhancement and link it to this bug. I would like the later approach here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:38 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Its already there. http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-14277
-----Original Message-----
From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:08 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Ok. Can you please file a feature request for the same to track it ?
Thanks,
-Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:24 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Put up on reviewborad https://reviews.apache.org/r/6431/. Please review and provide feedback.
Implementation based on [1] below. The hierarchical configuration that was discussed for enabling local storage support at multiple levels (pod/cluster/host) can be added as another checkin.
Thanks,
Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Local storage support for data volumes
Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage. This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
Thanks,
Koushik
[1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Patton [mailto:mpatton@inforelay.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 6:47 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> Unfortunately this caught my eye.
> " n disabled existing local storages are not removed but any new local
> storage is not added."
>
> This qualifies as interference. Cloud software must always reflect
> reality. This whole distinction between root or data being allowed as
> local was none of CS' business in the first place.
>
> Of course CS should throw an exception if you try to live migrate a
> local storage based instance. it can even refuse to do a cold migrate
> until such time as the needed code is written.
>
> But it is uncalled for CS to disallow otherwise legal operations or to
> unilaterally hide key elements because some programmer without
> sufficient real world experience thinks the world should fit their
> preconceived notions.
I agree, CS should not hide local storage. We can enable it or disable it, but should never hide it.
In current implementation, if use.local.storage is false, then the local storage will not be added into cloudstack database at all, thus UI will not show it, admin will not see it.
>
> Furthermore all three hypervisor flavors support movement of local VMs,
> not just Xen.
>
> First rule of UI design, do not lie to the user by hiding things. First
> rule of software development, programmers are generally horrible at
> engineering.
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
This is an initial stab at the feature. Agree there is scope for improvement and in course of time it will mature. I guess that’s the whole point of bringing it up for discussion in the community.
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Patton [mailto:mpatton@inforelay.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:17 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Unfortunately this caught my eye.
" n disabled existing local storages are not removed but any new local storage is not added."
This qualifies as interference. Cloud software must always reflect reality. This whole distinction between root or data being allowed as local was none of CS' business in the first place.
Of course CS should throw an exception if you try to live migrate a local storage based instance. it can even refuse to do a cold migrate until such time as the needed code is written.
But it is uncalled for CS to disallow otherwise legal operations or to unilaterally hide key elements because some programmer without sufficient real world experience thinks the world should fit their preconceived notions.
Furthermore all three hypervisor flavors support movement of local VMs, not just Xen.
First rule of UI design, do not lie to the user by hiding things. First rule of software development, programmers are generally horrible at engineering.
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Matthew Patton <mp...@inforelay.com>.
Unfortunately this caught my eye.
" n disabled existing local storages are not removed but any new local storage is not added."
This qualifies as interference. Cloud software must always reflect reality. This whole distinction between root or data being allowed as local was none of CS' business in the first place.
Of course CS should throw an exception if you try to live migrate a local storage based instance. it can even refuse to do a cold migrate until such time as the needed code is written.
But it is uncalled for CS to disallow otherwise legal operations or to unilaterally hide key elements because some programmer without sufficient real world experience thinks the world should fit their preconceived notions.
Furthermore all three hypervisor flavors support movement of local VMs, not just Xen.
First rule of UI design, do not lie to the user by hiding things. First rule of software development, programmers are generally horrible at engineering.
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Its already there. http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-14277
-----Original Message-----
From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:08 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Ok. Can you please file a feature request for the same to track it ?
Thanks,
-Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:24 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Put up on reviewborad https://reviews.apache.org/r/6431/. Please review and provide feedback.
Implementation based on [1] below. The hierarchical configuration that was discussed for enabling local storage support at multiple levels (pod/cluster/host) can be added as another checkin.
Thanks,
Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Local storage support for data volumes
Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage. This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
Thanks,
Koushik
[1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>.
Ok. Can you please file a feature request for the same to track it ?
Thanks,
-Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:24 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Put up on reviewborad https://reviews.apache.org/r/6431/. Please review and provide feedback.
Implementation based on [1] below. The hierarchical configuration that was discussed for enabling local storage support at multiple levels (pod/cluster/host) can be added as another checkin.
Thanks,
Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Local storage support for data volumes
Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage. This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
Thanks,
Koushik
[1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Put up on reviewborad https://reviews.apache.org/r/6431/. Please review and provide feedback.
Implementation based on [1] below. The hierarchical configuration that was discussed for enabling local storage support at multiple levels (pod/cluster/host) can be added as another checkin.
Thanks,
Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Local storage support for data volumes
Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage. This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
Thanks,
Koushik
[1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 07/30/2012 02:40 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>
> Even zone-level seems too high - why isn't this at the cluster level?
>
> --David
+1, cluster level seems much more logical than global.
Wido
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
This is definitely a good suggestion. If the community feels that having the setting at the cluster level makes more sense then I will take that into account.
Thanks,
Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:33 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:40 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>
> Even zone-level seems too high - why isn't this at the cluster level?
>
> --David
>
+1
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:40 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>
> Even zone-level seems too high - why isn't this at the cluster level?
>
> --David
>
+1
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Clayton Weise <cw...@iswest.net>.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>Even zone-level seems too high - why isn't this at the cluster level?
>
>--David
+1 . It makes more sense at a cluster level. I think perhaps so the dashboard doesn't get skewed upon initial install it might be something that is off by default and needs to be turned on, but I think it should be done at a cluster level.
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
>
> -Koushik
>
Even zone-level seems too high - why isn't this at the cluster level?
--David
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Good suggestion David. The only downside about this is since the config is at multiple level the user hopefully shouldn't get confused figuring out the inheritance.
>
> -Koushik
>
Yes, and how behavior should be if it does use inheritance. Imagine
the following scenario:
Zone: LocalStorage=ON
Pod: LocalStorage=Not configured (presumably the default is disabled)
Cluster: Not configured (again presumably disabled)
For the host in that cluster, is local storage enabled or not?
This may mean that there needs to be a third state that is the default
that inherits from above.
I could envision wanting to enable it for an entire zone but disable
it for a specific cluster within that zone.
--David
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Good suggestion David. The only downside about this is since the config is at multiple level the user hopefully shouldn't get confused figuring out the inheritance.
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:52 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Edison,
> Enabling/disabling local storage at host level is a good option for a small deployment where the number of host is < 20-30. For a large deployment configuring this for each host is not a very clean experience from the admin perspective. Hence the idea of doing it at some grouping level (cluster/pod/zone).
>
> Nitin,
> When local storage is enabled (say at cluster level), then on any new host addition the local storage for it also gets added. For existing hosts local storage shows up on MS restart. Also if disabled already created storage pools will still remain, only new storage pools won't get added.
>
>
Maybe some level of inheritance? Perhaps the setting is at the host level, but you can turn it on/off at the cluster/pod/zone and it inherits to all hosts within that given level.
--David
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Edison,
> Enabling/disabling local storage at host level is a good option for a small deployment where the number of host is < 20-30. For a large deployment configuring this for each host is not a very clean experience from the admin perspective. Hence the idea of doing it at some grouping level (cluster/pod/zone).
>
> Nitin,
> When local storage is enabled (say at cluster level), then on any new host addition the local storage for it also gets added. For existing hosts local storage shows up on MS restart. Also if disabled already created storage pools will still remain, only new storage pools won't get added.
>
>
Maybe some level of inheritance? Perhaps the setting is at the host
level, but you can turn it on/off at the cluster/pod/zone and it
inherits to all hosts within that given level.
--David
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Edison,
Enabling/disabling local storage at host level is a good option for a small deployment where the number of host is < 20-30. For a large deployment configuring this for each host is not a very clean experience from the admin perspective. Hence the idea of doing it at some grouping level (cluster/pod/zone).
Nitin,
When local storage is enabled (say at cluster level), then on any new host addition the local storage for it also gets added. For existing hosts local storage shows up on MS restart. Also if disabled already created storage pools will still remain, only new storage pools won't get added.
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 1:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:18 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> David - I think the cluster is supposed to be homogeneous in terms of
> hardware and hypervisor version and selectively having local storage
> for hosts shouldn't be a problem. Allocation also looks at cluster to
> have a rough idea if the vm can be accommodated or not.
> Since the local storage is tied at the host level I wanted to find
> community's viewpoint if we want the flexibility at the lowest level
> or not.
Local storage is per host, not per cluster, and it's not created by cloudstack mgt server.
If admin doesn't want local storage for a particular host, he can disable it during hypervisor host installation or setup.
What's the usage case to put the local storage at zone/cluster level?
>
> But then on second thought I myself don't see a lot of merit of having
> this flexibility at the host level at the moment and it might become
> little tedious for the admin to disable local storage.
> Another concern is that if you have the flag at cluster/zone level
> then how would you enable it on the fly - would you be creating local
> storages for all the hosts within that cluster/zone ? Has that been
> addressed ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Nitin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:22 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the
> admin adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local
> storage for that host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity
> that we can provide to the admin ?
>
> But hosts within a cluster are supposed to be homogenous. And aren't
> allocation planning decisions made at the cluster level? What benefit
> do you see by making this specific to the host as opposed to the
> cluster?
>
> --David
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:18 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> David - I think the cluster is supposed to be homogeneous in terms of
> hardware and hypervisor version and selectively having local storage
> for hosts shouldn't be a problem. Allocation also looks at cluster to
> have a rough idea if the vm can be accommodated or not.
> Since the local storage is tied at the host level I wanted to find
> community's viewpoint if we want the flexibility at the lowest level or
> not.
Local storage is per host, not per cluster, and it's not created by cloudstack mgt server.
If admin doesn't want local storage for a particular host, he can disable it during hypervisor host installation or setup.
What's the usage case to put the local storage at zone/cluster level?
>
> But then on second thought I myself don't see a lot of merit of having
> this flexibility at the host level at the moment and it might become
> little tedious for the admin to disable local storage.
> Another concern is that if you have the flag at cluster/zone level then
> how would you enable it on the fly - would you be creating local
> storages for all the hosts within that cluster/zone ? Has that been
> addressed ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Nitin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:22 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the
> admin adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local
> storage for that host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity
> that we can provide to the admin ?
>
> But hosts within a cluster are supposed to be homogenous. And aren't
> allocation planning decisions made at the cluster level? What benefit
> do you see by making this specific to the host as opposed to the
> cluster?
>
> --David
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>.
David - I think the cluster is supposed to be homogeneous in terms of hardware and hypervisor version and selectively having local storage for hosts shouldn't be a problem. Allocation also looks at cluster to have a rough idea if the vm can be accommodated or not.
Since the local storage is tied at the host level I wanted to find community's viewpoint if we want the flexibility at the lowest level or not.
But then on second thought I myself don't see a lot of merit of having this flexibility at the host level at the moment and it might become little tedious for the admin to disable local storage.
Another concern is that if you have the flag at cluster/zone level then how would you enable it on the fly - would you be creating local storages for all the hosts within that cluster/zone ? Has that been addressed ?
Thanks,
-Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:22 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the admin adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local storage for that host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity that we can provide to the admin ?
But hosts within a cluster are supposed to be homogenous. And aren't allocation planning decisions made at the cluster level? What benefit do you see by making this specific to the host as opposed to the cluster?
--David
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the admin adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local storage for that host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity that we can provide to the admin ?
But hosts within a cluster are supposed to be homogenous. And aren't
allocation planning decisions made at the cluster level? What benefit
do you see by making this specific to the host as opposed to the
cluster?
--David
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>.
Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the admin adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local storage for that host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity that we can provide to the admin ?
Another question - With this feature would upload volume functionality work for local storage as well ? Also if the end user chooses HA service offering and local storage disk offering would that deployment go through ?
Thanks,
-Nitin
-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:32 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
I think it is always better to give control to the administrator on whether to enable/disable local storage in a cluster/zone level. If local storage pool is available by default then it may be difficult to manage all of them in case of a cluster with large number of hosts. Also in some cases it may be required not to allow local volume creation on a selected set of hosts (say in a particular cluster).
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:08 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently
> it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
How about get rid of use.local.storage at all? Local storage as a storage pool resource, by default, is always available on each hypervisor host. CloudStack mgt server should not hide the existing available resource. To use local storage or not, that all depends on disk/service offering.
>
> -Koushik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:Prasanna.Santhanam@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:13 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:23:44AM -0400, Koushik Das wrote:
> > Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage.
> > This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage.
> > Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug
> > CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Koushik
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volum
> > es
>
> First question from a skim of the spec:
>
> Why is the `data_center` table getting a new column about local storage?
> Seems out of place for it to be there. Can this not be a global
> setting/ Or are you looking to control this setting per data center?
>
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
I think it is always better to give control to the administrator on whether to enable/disable local storage in a cluster/zone level. If local storage pool is available by default then it may be difficult to manage all of them in case of a cluster with large number of hosts. Also in some cases it may be required not to allow local volume creation on a selected set of hosts (say in a particular cluster).
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:08 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently
> it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
How about get rid of use.local.storage at all? Local storage as a storage pool resource, by default, is always available on each hypervisor host. CloudStack mgt server should not hide the existing available resource. To use local storage or not, that all depends on disk/service offering.
>
> -Koushik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:Prasanna.Santhanam@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:13 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:23:44AM -0400, Koushik Das wrote:
> > Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage.
> > This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage.
> > Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug
> > CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Koushik
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volum
> > es
>
> First question from a skim of the spec:
>
> Why is the `data_center` table getting a new column about local storage?
> Seems out of place for it to be there. Can this not be a global
> setting/ Or are you looking to control this setting per data center?
>
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently
> it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
How about get rid of use.local.storage at all? Local storage as a storage pool resource, by default, is always available on each hypervisor host. CloudStack mgt server should not hide the existing available resource. To use local storage or not, that all depends on disk/service offering.
>
> -Koushik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:Prasanna.Santhanam@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:13 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:23:44AM -0400, Koushik Das wrote:
> > Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage.
> > This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage.
> > Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug
> > CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Koushik
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volum
> > es
>
> First question from a skim of the spec:
>
> Why is the `data_center` table getting a new column about local storage?
> Seems out of place for it to be there. Can this not be a global
> setting/ Or are you looking to control this setting per data center?
>
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
RE: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Yes the idea is to have local storage setting at zone level. Currently it is a global setting (use.local.storage).
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:Prasanna.Santhanam@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:13 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:23:44AM -0400, Koushik Das wrote:
> Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage.
> This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local storage.
> Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug
> CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Koushik
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volum
> es
First question from a skim of the spec:
Why is the `data_center` table getting a new column about local storage? Seems out of place for it to be there. Can this not be a global setting/ Or are you looking to control this setting per data center?
--
Prasanna.,
Re: Local storage support for data volumes
Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <Pr...@citrix.com>.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:23:44AM -0400, Koushik Das wrote:
> Currently in CS only root volume can be created on local storage.
> This feature is to support creation of data volumes on local
> storage. Please refer to [1] for the details. There is already a bug
> CS-14277 created for this. Reviews/comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Koushik
>
> [1] http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Local+storage+for+data+volumes
First question from a skim of the spec:
Why is the `data_center` table getting a new column about local
storage? Seems out of place for it to be there. Can this not be a
global setting/ Or are you looking to control this setting per
data center?
--
Prasanna.,