You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> on 2013/07/03 23:29:45 UTC

Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:40 AM
>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we
>> want to support Swift?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > If so, which version of Swift?
>>
>> At least the version that we were supporting before the OS merge.
>
> Swift is not been tested for a long time, at least, it's not been tested in 4.0, 4.1 by Citrix QA team. So I really don't know, what's the status of swift even before OS merge.
> So I am asking the question from the community, and gathering requirements. If we want to support this feature, that means at least, there are QA testing this feature for each release, and there are users are using it.

Gotcha.

So how about I clarify to "the version that people think we are
supporting" as of the last Citrix release of CloudStack (pre-ASF) that
was tested?  This sounds like we are heading down the same path that
we did with OVM, and that scares me.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:40 AM
> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we
> want to support Swift?
> 
> Yes
> 
> > If so, which version of Swift?
> 
> At least the version that we were supporting before the OS merge.

Swift is not been tested for a long time, at least, it's not been tested in 4.0, 4.1 by Citrix QA team. So I really don't know, what's the status of swift even before OS merge.
So I am asking the question from the community, and gathering requirements. If we want to support this feature, that means at least, there are QA testing this feature for each release, and there are users are using it.

> 
> -chip

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:40 AM
> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we
> want to support Swift?
> 
> Yes
> 
> > If so, which version of Swift?
> 
> At least the version that we were supporting before the OS merge.

Swift is not been tested for a long time, at least, it's not been tested in 4.0, 4.1 by Citrix QA team. So I really don't know, what's the status of swift even before OS merge.
So I am asking the question from the community, and gathering requirements. If we want to support this feature, that means at least, there are QA testing this feature for each release, and there are users are using it.

> 
> -chip

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift?

Yes

> If so, which version of Swift?

At least the version that we were supporting before the OS merge.

-chip

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <pr...@citrix.com>.

There was someone in the community using swift in production and had
volunteered to do some testing. See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3350

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:57:14PM +0000, Angeline Shen wrote:
> Hi Edison, Anthony,  Developers who are  interested:
> 
> I tested Swift integration with Cloudstack 3.x .
> 
> Please let me know if  we need to first round  testing of how broken  Swift  is  in terms of integration with  campo 4.2.
> 
> In the process of allocating hosts for Swift integration.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

-- 
Prasanna.,

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <pr...@citrix.com>.

There was someone in the community using swift in production and had
volunteered to do some testing. See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3350

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:57:14PM +0000, Angeline Shen wrote:
> Hi Edison, Anthony,  Developers who are  interested:
> 
> I tested Swift integration with Cloudstack 3.x .
> 
> Please let me know if  we need to first round  testing of how broken  Swift  is  in terms of integration with  campo 4.2.
> 
> In the process of allocating hosts for Swift integration.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

-- 
Prasanna.,

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Angeline Shen <An...@citrix.com>.

Hi Edison, Anthony,  Developers who are  interested:

I tested Swift integration with Cloudstack 3.x .

Please let me know if  we need to first round  testing of how broken  Swift  is  in terms of integration with  campo 4.2.

In the process of allocating hosts for Swift integration.

Thanks.



-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:30 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Angeline Shen <An...@citrix.com>.

Hi Edison, Anthony,  Developers who are  interested:

I tested Swift integration with Cloudstack 3.x .

Please let me know if  we need to first round  testing of how broken  Swift  is  in terms of integration with  campo 4.2.

In the process of allocating hosts for Swift integration.

Thanks.



-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:30 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:13PM +0000, Mathias Mullins wrote:
> 
> On 7/10/13 8:59 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Chip Childers
> ><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mullins@citrix.com]
> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
> >>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
> >>> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>>supported in
> >>> > 4.2?
> >>> >
> >>> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire
> >>>discussion,
> >>> > and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am
> >>>worried
> >>> > that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At
> >>>the
> >>> > same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
> >>> > that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
> >>> > tested in that past releases.
> >>> >
> >>> > My observations -
> >>> > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> >>> > 2. We don't know who can do it.
> >>> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
> >>> > 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
> >>> > version or the newer one.
> >>> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> >>> > feature.
> >>> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> >>> >
> >>> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going
> >>>to
> >>> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> >>> >
> >>> > Suggestion:
> >>> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we
> >>>can't
> >>> > validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
> >>> > don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1
> >>>and
> >>> > lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
> >>> > the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need
> >>>to
> >>> > do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
> >>> > too.
> >>> >
> >>> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new
> >>>versions.
> >>> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> >>> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut
> >>>of
> >>> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it
> >>>goes
> >>> > out with 4.2.1 asap.
> >>> >
> >>> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> >>> >
> >>> > Ready, setŠ fire!
> >>> > Matt
> >>> >
> >>> [Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I
> >>>agree if we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given
> >>>that we are 3 weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either
> >>>needs to be addressed or we need to defer them.
> >>
> >> Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user.  IMO, this should be a
> >> blocker.  We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the
> >>object
> >> store branch merge changes.
> >
> >Agreed, though honestly I would agree with those decisions regardless
> >of whether there was a user or not.
> >Breaking features in an unplanned manner is a blocker.
> >If it can't be fixed, the change that broke it should be reverted IMO.
> >--David
> 
> And what if we have nothing to revert too that we can make compatible and
> function, and a expert to make it functional, What do we do then?
> This seems to be the state we are in.
> 
> Matt
> 
>

Well, given that we have a bug about Swift (3350), we know that there
are bugs...  but that generally it's working.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.

On 7/10/13 8:59 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Chip Childers
><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mullins@citrix.com]
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
>>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
>>> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>supported in
>>> > 4.2?
>>> >
>>> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire
>>>discussion,
>>> > and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am
>>>worried
>>> > that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At
>>>the
>>> > same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
>>> > that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
>>> > tested in that past releases.
>>> >
>>> > My observations -
>>> > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
>>> > 2. We don't know who can do it.
>>> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
>>> > 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
>>> > version or the newer one.
>>> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
>>> > feature.
>>> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
>>> >
>>> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going
>>>to
>>> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
>>> >
>>> > Suggestion:
>>> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we
>>>can't
>>> > validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
>>> > don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1
>>>and
>>> > lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
>>> > the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need
>>>to
>>> > do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
>>> > too.
>>> >
>>> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new
>>>versions.
>>> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
>>> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut
>>>of
>>> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it
>>>goes
>>> > out with 4.2.1 asap.
>>> >
>>> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
>>> >
>>> > Ready, setŠ fire!
>>> > Matt
>>> >
>>> [Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I
>>>agree if we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given
>>>that we are 3 weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either
>>>needs to be addressed or we need to defer them.
>>
>> Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user.  IMO, this should be a
>> blocker.  We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the
>>object
>> store branch merge changes.
>
>Agreed, though honestly I would agree with those decisions regardless
>of whether there was a user or not.
>Breaking features in an unplanned manner is a blocker.
>If it can't be fixed, the change that broke it should be reverted IMO.
>--David

And what if we have nothing to revert too that we can make compatible and
function, and a expert to make it functional, What do we do then?
This seems to be the state we are in.

Matt

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mullins@citrix.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
>> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>> > 4.2?
>> >
>> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
>> > and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
>> > that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
>> > same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
>> > that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
>> > tested in that past releases.
>> >
>> > My observations -
>> > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
>> > 2. We don't know who can do it.
>> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
>> > 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
>> > version or the newer one.
>> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
>> > feature.
>> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
>> >
>> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
>> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
>> >
>> > Suggestion:
>> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
>> > validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
>> > don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and
>> > lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
>> > the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to
>> > do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
>> > too.
>> >
>> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
>> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
>> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
>> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
>> > out with 4.2.1 asap.
>> >
>> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
>> >
>> > Ready, setŠ fire!
>> > Matt
>> >
>> [Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I agree if we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given that we are 3 weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either needs to be addressed or we need to defer them.
>
> Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user.  IMO, this should be a
> blocker.  We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the object
> store branch merge changes.

Agreed, though honestly I would agree with those decisions regardless
of whether there was a user or not.
Breaking features in an unplanned manner is a blocker.
If it can't be fixed, the change that broke it should be reverted IMO.
--David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 08:40 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user.  IMO, this should be a
> blocker.  We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the
> object store branch merge changes.

+1 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mullins@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> > 4.2?
> > 
> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
> > and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
> > that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
> > same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
> > that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
> > tested in that past releases.
> > 
> > My observations -
> > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> > 2. We don't know who can do it.
> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
> > 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
> > version or the newer one.
> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> > feature.
> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> > 
> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> > 
> > Suggestion:
> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
> > validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
> > don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and
> > lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
> > the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to
> > do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
> > too.
> > 
> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
> > out with 4.2.1 asap.
> > 
> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> > 
> > Ready, setŠ fire!
> > Matt
> > 
> [Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I agree if we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given that we are 3 weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either needs to be addressed or we need to defer them.

Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user.  IMO, this should be a
blocker.  We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the object
store branch merge changes.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mullins@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> 
> I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
> and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
> that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
> same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
> that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
> tested in that past releases.
> 
> My observations -
> 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> 2. We don't know who can do it.
> 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
> 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
> version or the newer one.
> 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> feature.
> 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> 
> Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> 
> Suggestion:
> Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
> validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
> don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and
> lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
> the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to
> do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
> too.
> 
> We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
> We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
> out with 4.2.1 asap.
> 
> So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> 
> Ready, setŠ fire!
> Matt
> 
[Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I agree if we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given that we are 3 weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either needs to be addressed or we need to defer them.
> 
> 
> On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <an...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
> >> To: Edison Su
> >> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> >> in 4.2?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> >> > > To: Edison Su
> >> > > Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >> supported in 4.2?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> > > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
> >> > > > effort to support
> >> > > Swift.
> >> > > > But who will make the decision?
> >> > >
> >> > > We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...
> >> > > let's see if others have opinions about this though.
> >> > >
> >> > > Heres how I see it:
> >> > >
> >> > > Pros -
> >> > >  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> >> > >  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> >> > >  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces
> the
> >> > >    long-term support / test efforts
> >> > >
> >> > > Cons -
> >> > >  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
> >> have the
> >> > >    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm
> >> > > not
> >> aware
> >> > >    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> >> >
> >> > I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input
> >> > from
> >> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift,
> >> what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> >> > If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need
> >> > to
> >> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> >>
> >> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
> >> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on
> >> the discussion?
> >>
> >[Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
> >customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did
> >not end up using it.
> >> >
> >> > >  * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> >> > >
> >> > > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or
> >> > > better than other
> >> > > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> >> > >
> >> > > Others?
> >> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Caleb Call wrote:
> Although my voice doesn't mean a lot, I too would vote this as
> a blocker.  If it's going to be dropped, users need to be notified well
> in advanced so they can be make plans moving forward instead of suddenly
> being stranded on an out-dated version.

Your voice does mean a lot, thanks for speaking up. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release?
> Such as adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this
> feature, I am pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if
> we continue adding feature without test.

This should be less likely because the storage framework now
pluginizes the swift storage? Earlier it was more prone to be broken
because it was coupled with NFS storage code

-- 
Prasanna.,

------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:46:50PM +0000, Alex Huang wrote:
> John,
> 
> I'm concerned that object store implementations that's going into
> 4.2 will repeat this fate if we don't add them into the automated
> test environment.  Perhaps, you, me, Edison, Prassana, and perhaps
> Thomas can work together about how to add the current
> implementations into the regression test suite?
> 

I had emailed earlier (1 week ago I thnk) that I'll be switching out
all the test infrastructure to run only on object store for master. I
made all the changes but ran in to the AWS SDK problem which I bumped
up to get it to work.

In this time window, I was making another change to use Xen 6.2 only
which ran into some problems, I am following up on xen-devel about
that. Once done, all test infra will be based on object store. But
provider specific implementations (Amazon, RiakCS, Swift) I haven't
really thought about.

-- 
Prasanna.,

------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.

John,

I'm concerned that object store implementations that's going into 4.2 will repeat this fate if we don't add them into the automated test environment.  Perhaps, you, me, Edison, Prassana, and perhaps Thomas can work together about how to add the current implementations into the regression test suite?

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> All,
> 
> For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.  First, it was
> merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.  Second, it merged a
> feature depreciation without community consensus.  On their own, each of
> these actions violate core community values.  Cumulatively, I am concerned
> that these actions will erode our self governance, collaboration, technical
> quality, and community growth.  So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re-
> implementing and testing Swift integration, and ensuring that these process
> anomalies remain isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.
> In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to get a Swift
> instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full OpenStack (including
> Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet
> connection speeds).
> 
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two
> days, to setup a swift environment.
> >
> > Great!
> >
> >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as
> adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty sure,
> it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without
> test.
> >
> > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to deprecate
> > it (if that ever happens).
> >
> >> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse
> than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we
> should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?
> >
> > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out
> > for us already.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.

Not sure about the upload status - Swift itself may not have anything like
that. It looks like files >5gb require some jumping through hoops with
swift in general -
http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-object-storage/1.0/content/large-object-creation.html.
And jclouds' blobstore approach supports payloads directly from
inputstreams, if that's what you mean.

A.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> I need the following functionalities from any swift client/library:
> 1. can directly upload an remote URL into swift, S3 has the API:
> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/AmazonS3Client.html#putObject(java.lang.String,
> java.lang.String, java.io.InputStream,
> com.amazonaws.services.s3.model.ObjectMetadata)
> 2. can track the status of upload: like,
> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/transfer/TransferManager.html
> 3. can upload file more than 5GB.
> Do you know jclouds swift interface supports above functionalities?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.bayer@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 5:31 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: Chip Childers
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >
> > Don't forget Apache jclouds - we've got a robust Swift interface:
> > http://jclouds.incubator.apache.org/documentation/quickstart/openstack/
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:50 AM
> > > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > > supported in
> > > 4.2?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for
> > > creating
> > > > Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and
> > > > VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and,
> > > following
> > > > further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack
> > > project.
> > > > Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a
> > > > PR),
> > > and I
> > > > will fix them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storag
> > > > e+
> > > > Dev-Test+Environments
> > > > > [2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack
> > > >
> > > > John, this is awesome!
> > > >
> > > > Edison, Does this help you out?
> > > It will help a little, but anyway, thanks John's help.
> > > My current problem is that, swift doesn't have a client library, which
> > > can directly upload a template from an URL into swift storage.
> > > I searched, there is a java library, called,
> > > http://joss.javaswift.org/, which can upload an object from an
> > > inputstream, but it only works with certain swift storage vendors.
> > > Seems I have to download the template url into staging area, then
> > > upload the file into swift?
> > >
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

I need the following functionalities from any swift client/library:
1. can directly upload an remote URL into swift, S3 has the API: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/AmazonS3Client.html#putObject(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.io.InputStream, com.amazonaws.services.s3.model.ObjectMetadata)
2. can track the status of upload: like, http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/transfer/TransferManager.html
3. can upload file more than 5GB.
Do you know jclouds swift interface supports above functionalities?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.bayer@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 5:31 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Chip Childers
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Don't forget Apache jclouds - we've got a robust Swift interface:
> http://jclouds.incubator.apache.org/documentation/quickstart/openstack/
> 
> A.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:50 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in
> > 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for
> > creating
> > > Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and
> > > VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and,
> > following
> > > further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack
> > project.
> > > Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a
> > > PR),
> > and I
> > > will fix them.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storag
> > > e+
> > > Dev-Test+Environments
> > > > [2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack
> > >
> > > John, this is awesome!
> > >
> > > Edison, Does this help you out?
> > It will help a little, but anyway, thanks John's help.
> > My current problem is that, swift doesn't have a client library, which
> > can directly upload a template from an URL into swift storage.
> > I searched, there is a java library, called,
> > http://joss.javaswift.org/, which can upload an object from an
> > inputstream, but it only works with certain swift storage vendors.
> > Seems I have to download the template url into staging area, then
> > upload the file into swift?
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.

Don't forget Apache jclouds - we've got a robust Swift interface:
http://jclouds.incubator.apache.org/documentation/quickstart/openstack/

A.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:50 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>
> wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for
> creating
> > Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and
> > VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and,
> following
> > further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack
> project.
> > Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a PR),
> and I
> > will fix them.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storage+
> > Dev-Test+Environments
> > > [2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack
> >
> > John, this is awesome!
> >
> > Edison, Does this help you out?
> It will help a little, but anyway, thanks John's help.
> My current problem is that, swift doesn't have a client library, which can
> directly upload a template from an URL into swift storage.
> I searched, there is a java library, called, http://joss.javaswift.org/,
> which can upload an object from an inputstream, but it only works with
> certain swift storage vendors.
> Seems I have to download the template url into staging area, then upload
> the file into swift?
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:50 AM
> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for creating
> Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and
> VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and, following
> further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack project.
> Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a PR), and I
> will fix them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > [1]:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storage+
> Dev-Test+Environments
> > [2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack
> 
> John, this is awesome!
> 
> Edison, Does this help you out?
It will help a little, but anyway, thanks John's help.
My current problem is that, swift doesn't have a client library, which can directly upload a template from an URL into swift storage.
I searched, there is a java library, called, http://joss.javaswift.org/, which can upload an object from an inputstream, but it only works with certain swift storage vendors.
Seems I have to download the template url into staging area, then upload the file into swift?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for creating Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and, following further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack project.  Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a PR), and I will fix them.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storage+Dev-Test+Environments
> [2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack

John, this is awesome!

Edison, Does this help you out?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

All,

I have assembled a wiki topic [1] that describes the process for creating Riak CS and Swift development/test environments using Vagrant and VirtualBox.  I created a  Devstack Vagrant configuration [2], and, following further testing and feedback, I plan to submit it to the OpenStack project.  Therefore, please let me know if you have any problems (or send a PR), and I will fix them.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Object+Storage+Dev-Test+Environments
[2]: https://github.com/jburwell/devstack

On Jul 12, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI,
> 
> 6 months ago there was a discuss on linked in with Gerry Havinga who apparently was working on the swiftstack integration:
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Little-bit-help-installing-Cloudstack-3144859%2ES%2E203595045?qid=da98b8b1-6ebc-4218-a541-79982bc8cc1f&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl
> 
> And today I saw a post on twitter which claimed that softlayer was using swift 
> 
> 
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks in advance. I'll ping you offline.
>> BTW, if there is no object, I'll write swift api against whatever supported by Dreamhost objects, as they are the only vendor I can test.
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Neil Levine [mailto:neil.levine@inktank.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:27 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>> 
>>> Dreamhost Objects runs Ceph on the backend which supports both the S3
>>> and the Swift API. If you ping me offline, I can give you some test account
>>> details.
>>> 
>>> Neil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dave,
>>>> 
>>>> It also has to be with native swift API.  It can't be exposing S3 API
>>>> or their own API but using swift in the back end.
>>>> 
>>>> --Alex
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:45 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>> supported in
>>>> 4.2?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers <
>>>> chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After
>>>>>>>>> installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with
>>>>>>>> CloudStack, what about SwiftStack?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not
>>>>>>>> overly difficult.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> jzb
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Joe Brockmeier
>>>>>>>> jzb@zonker.net
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @jzb
>>>>>>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
>>>>>>> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
>>>>>>> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any *free* ones?  ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me
>>>>> confirm
>>>> with
>>>>> the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --David
>>>> 
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.

FYI,

6 months ago there was a discuss on linked in with Gerry Havinga who apparently was working on the swiftstack integration:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Little-bit-help-installing-Cloudstack-3144859%2ES%2E203595045?qid=da98b8b1-6ebc-4218-a541-79982bc8cc1f&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl

And today I saw a post on twitter which claimed that softlayer was using swift 


On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Thanks in advance. I'll ping you offline.
> BTW, if there is no object, I'll write swift api against whatever supported by Dreamhost objects, as they are the only vendor I can test.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Neil Levine [mailto:neil.levine@inktank.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:27 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> Dreamhost Objects runs Ceph on the backend which supports both the S3
>> and the Swift API. If you ping me offline, I can give you some test account
>> details.
>> 
>> Neil
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dave,
>>> 
>>> It also has to be with native swift API.  It can't be exposing S3 API
>>> or their own API but using swift in the back end.
>>> 
>>> --Alex
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:45 AM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>> supported in
>>> 4.2?
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers <
>>> chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After
>>>>>>>> installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with
>>>>>>> CloudStack, what about SwiftStack?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not
>>>>>>> overly difficult.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> jzb
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Joe Brockmeier
>>>>>>> jzb@zonker.net
>>>>>>> Twitter: @jzb
>>>>>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
>>>>>> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
>>>>>> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any *free* ones?  ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me
>>>> confirm
>>> with
>>>> the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.
>>>> 
>>>> --David
>>>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

Thanks in advance. I'll ping you offline.
BTW, if there is no object, I'll write swift api against whatever supported by Dreamhost objects, as they are the only vendor I can test.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Levine [mailto:neil.levine@inktank.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:27 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Dreamhost Objects runs Ceph on the backend which supports both the S3
> and the Swift API. If you ping me offline, I can give you some test account
> details.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > It also has to be with native swift API.  It can't be exposing S3 API
> > or their own API but using swift in the back end.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:45 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in
> > 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers <
> > chip.childers@sungard.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> > > >>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After
> > > >>>> installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with
> > > >>> CloudStack, what about SwiftStack?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not
> > > >>> overly difficult.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jzb
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Joe Brockmeier
> > > >>> jzb@zonker.net
> > > >>> Twitter: @jzb
> > > >>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> > > >>
> > > >> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
> > > >> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
> > > >> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
> > > >>
> > > >> --David
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Any *free* ones?  ;-)
> > >
> > > So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me
> > > confirm
> > with
> > > the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.
> > >
> > > --David
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Neil Levine <ne...@inktank.com>.

Dreamhost Objects runs Ceph on the backend which supports both the S3 and
the Swift API. If you ping me offline, I can give you some test account
details.

Neil


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> It also has to be with native swift API.  It can't be exposing S3 API or
> their own API but using swift in the back end.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:45 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers <
> chip.childers@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> > >>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After
> > >>>> installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
> > >>> what about SwiftStack?
> > >>>
> > >>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
> > >>>
> > >>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
> > >>> difficult.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>>
> > >>> jzb
> > >>> --
> > >>> Joe Brockmeier
> > >>> jzb@zonker.net
> > >>> Twitter: @jzb
> > >>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> > >>
> > >> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
> > >> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
> > >> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
> > >>
> > >> --David
> > >>
> > >
> > > Any *free* ones?  ;-)
> >
> > So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me confirm
> with
> > the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.
> >
> > --David
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.

Dave,

It also has to be with native swift API.  It can't be exposing S3 API or their own API but using swift in the back end.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:45 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After
> >>>> installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> >>>
> >>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
> >>> what about SwiftStack?
> >>>
> >>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
> >>>
> >>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
> >>> difficult.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> jzb
> >>> --
> >>> Joe Brockmeier
> >>> jzb@zonker.net
> >>> Twitter: @jzb
> >>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> >>
> >> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
> >> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
> >> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
> >>
> >> --David
> >>
> >
> > Any *free* ones?  ;-)
> 
> So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me confirm with
> the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.
> 
> --David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
>>>> devstack, there is no swift service at all.
>>>
>>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
>>> what about SwiftStack?
>>>
>>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
>>>
>>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
>>> difficult.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> jzb
>>> --
>>> Joe Brockmeier
>>> jzb@zonker.net
>>> Twitter: @jzb
>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>
>> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
>> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
>> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
>>
>> --David
>>
>
> Any *free* ones?  ;-)

So I know of at least one project that has free access - let me
confirm with the provider that they'd be amenable to us using it.

--David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 09:42 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Any *free* ones?  ;-)

Haven't found one yet, I'll keep an eye out... 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
>>> devstack, there is no swift service at all.
>>
>> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
>> what about SwiftStack?
>>
>> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
>>
>> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
>> difficult.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> jzb
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> jzb@zonker.net
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
> There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
> If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?
>
> --David
>

Any *free* ones?  ;-)

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
>> devstack, there is no swift service at all.
>
> For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
> what about SwiftStack?
>
> http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html
>
> I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
> difficult.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

I am curious why we'd set this up at all?
There are several public cloud providers offering swift as a service.
If all we are doing is testing, why wouldn't we just use one of them?

--David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 05:53 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
> devstack, there is no swift service at all.

For Edison, and anybody else who wants to use Swift with CloudStack,
what about SwiftStack?

http://swiftstack.com/docs/install/index.html

I think you have to request a trial account, but it looks not overly
difficult.

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:51:15PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
> You're doing great, Edison. :) Keep up all the awesome work!!

+1! Edison, the concern about Swift isn't a reflection on your effort.
It's a concern that something will be dropped that we know users are
using.

> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > I spent two days to install Basio, about one week to get Cloudian work,
> > don't know how many days I need to get swift work.
> > Guys, don't blame me not support this feature and that feature, please
> > just take a look at how many work/hours I need, to a simple thing work.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:53 PM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> > 4.2?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> > > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> > in 4.2?
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.
> > > > First, it was merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.
> > > > Second, it merged a feature depreciation without community consensus.
> > > > On their own, each of these actions violate core community values.
> > > > Cumulatively, I am concerned that these actions will erode our self
> > > > governance, collaboration, technical quality, and community growth.
> > > > So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re- implementing and testing
> > > > Swift integration, and ensuring that these process anomalies remain
> > > isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.
> > > > In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to
> > > > get a Swift instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full
> > > > OpenStack (including
> > > > Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet
> > > > connection speeds).
> > >
> > > Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
> > > devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > > > >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or
> > > > >> two
> > > > days, to setup a swift environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Great!
> > > > >
> > > > >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release?
> > > > >> Such as
> > > > adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am
> > > > pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue
> > > > adding feature without test.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to
> > > > > deprecate it (if that ever happens).
> > > > >
> > > > >> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is
> > > > >> worse
> > > > than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature,
> > > > we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this
> > feature?
> > > > >
> > > > > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out
> > > > > for us already.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the
> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> *™*

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.

You're doing great, Edison. :) Keep up all the awesome work!!


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> I spent two days to install Basio, about one week to get Cloudian work,
> don't know how many days I need to get swift work.
> Guys, don't blame me not support this feature and that feature, please
> just take a look at how many work/hours I need, to a simple thing work.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:53 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> in 4.2?
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.
> > > First, it was merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.
> > > Second, it merged a feature depreciation without community consensus.
> > > On their own, each of these actions violate core community values.
> > > Cumulatively, I am concerned that these actions will erode our self
> > > governance, collaboration, technical quality, and community growth.
> > > So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re- implementing and testing
> > > Swift integration, and ensuring that these process anomalies remain
> > isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.
> > > In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > > P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to
> > > get a Swift instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full
> > > OpenStack (including
> > > Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet
> > > connection speeds).
> >
> > Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
> > devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> >
> > >
> > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > > >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or
> > > >> two
> > > days, to setup a swift environment.
> > > >
> > > > Great!
> > > >
> > > >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release?
> > > >> Such as
> > > adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am
> > > pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue
> > > adding feature without test.
> > > >
> > > > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to
> > > > deprecate it (if that ever happens).
> > > >
> > > >> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is
> > > >> worse
> > > than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature,
> > > we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this
> feature?
> > > >
> > > > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out
> > > > for us already.
>
>


-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

I spent two days to install Basio, about one week to get Cloudian work, don't know how many days I need to get swift work.
Guys, don't blame me not support this feature and that feature, please just take a look at how many work/hours I need, to a simple thing work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:53 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> > All,
> >
> > For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.
> > First, it was merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.
> > Second, it merged a feature depreciation without community consensus.
> > On their own, each of these actions violate core community values.
> > Cumulatively, I am concerned that these actions will erode our self
> > governance, collaboration, technical quality, and community growth.
> > So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re- implementing and testing
> > Swift integration, and ensuring that these process anomalies remain
> isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.
> > In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to
> > get a Swift instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full
> > OpenStack (including
> > Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet
> > connection speeds).
> 
> Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed
> devstack, there is no swift service at all.
> 
> >
> > On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or
> > >> two
> > days, to setup a swift environment.
> > >
> > > Great!
> > >
> > >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release?
> > >> Such as
> > adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am
> > pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue
> > adding feature without test.
> > >
> > > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to
> > > deprecate it (if that ever happens).
> > >
> > >> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is
> > >> worse
> > than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature,
> > we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?
> > >
> > > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out
> > > for us already.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Caleb Call'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> All,
> 
> For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.  First, it was
> merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.  Second, it merged a
> feature depreciation without community consensus.  On their own, each of
> these actions violate core community values.  Cumulatively, I am concerned
> that these actions will erode our self governance, collaboration, technical
> quality, and community growth.  So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re-
> implementing and testing Swift integration, and ensuring that these process
> anomalies remain isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.
> In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to get a Swift
> instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full OpenStack (including
> Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet
> connection speeds).

Oh man, my two hours are wasted on devstack already. After installed devstack, there is no swift service at all.

> 
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two
> days, to setup a swift environment.
> >
> > Great!
> >
> >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as
> adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty sure,
> it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without
> test.
> >
> > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to deprecate
> > it (if that ever happens).
> >
> >> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse
> than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we
> should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?
> >
> > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out
> > for us already.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

All,

For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch.  First, it was merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it.  Second, it merged a feature depreciation without community consensus.  On their own, each of these actions violate core community values.  Cumulatively, I am concerned that these actions will erode our self governance, collaboration, technical quality, and community growth.  So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re-implementing and testing Swift integration, and ensuring that these process anomalies remain isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend.  In that vein, how can I help fill this gap?

Thanks,
-John

P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to get a Swift instance up and running.  With it, you can build a full OpenStack (including Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet connection speeds).  

On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two days, to setup a swift environment.
> 
> Great!
> 
>> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without test.
> 
> Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to deprecate
> it (if that ever happens).
> 
>> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?
> 
> As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out for
> us already.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two days, to setup a swift environment.

Great!

> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without test.

Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to deprecate
it (if that ever happens).

> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?

As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out for
us already.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.

I wonder if this Swift-support question has gone out to the CloudStack
users e-mail list for opinions?


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two
> days, to setup a swift environment.
> 2. There is no single user from the "group of swift users" jumping into
> the thread. Do they really care about this feature?
> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as
> adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty
> sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature
> without test.
> 4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse
> than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we
> should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:53 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >
> > It's decisions like this (dropping a previously advertised supported
> feature
> > simply because it wasn't tested) are part of the reasons that have
> changed
> > our plan to use Cloudstack in our corporate environment.  I'm glad to see
> > Chip, David, and others pushing back on the decision to just drop it and
> fix it
> > in the next dot release (same story as OVM, go back and read the
> discussions
> > on the choice to drop it and they sound identical to what you're saying)
> which
> > generally means it's getting dropped for good.  It doesn't matter if the
> > feature currently works or not or if it's been tested in a while or not,
> it's being
> > advertised as being supported and people/companies make plans based on
> > those supported features.  Although my voice doesn't mean a lot, I too
> > would vote this as a blocker.  If it's going to be dropped, users need
> to be
> > notified well in advanced so they can be make plans moving forward
> instead
> > of suddenly being stranded on an out-dated version.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 9, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire
> > > discussion, and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and
> > > 4.1 am worried that this could be come the next delayer to the release
> > > of 4.2. At the same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N.,
> > > Chip and John B. that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't
> > > been attiquately tested in that past releases.
> > >
> > > My observations -
> > > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> > > 2. We don't know who can do it.
> > > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly 4. Currently we can't even
> > > agree on whether we go with the original version or the newer one.
> > > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> > > feature.
> > > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> > >
> > > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> > > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> > >
> > > Suggestion:
> > > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we
> > > can't validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix,
> > > and we don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for
> > > 4.2.1 and lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major
> > > release, and at the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a
> > > user. We need to do this, but at this point we need to do it right for
> that
> > user base too.
> > >
> > > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new
> versions.
> > > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> > > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> > > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
> > > out with 4.2.1 asap.
> > >
> > > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> > >
> > > Ready, setŠ fire!
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi"
> > > <an...@citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
> > >>> To: Edison Su
> > >>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > >>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > >>> supported in 4.2?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> > >>>>> To: Edison Su
> > >>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > >>> supported in 4.2?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > >>>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
> > >>>>>> effort to support
> > >>>>> Swift.
> > >>>>>> But who will make the decision?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...
> > >>>>> let's see if others have opinions about this though.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Heres how I see it:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Pros -
> > >>>>> * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> > >>>>> * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> > >>>>> * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
> > >>>>>   long-term support / test efforts
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cons -
> > >>>>> * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
> > >>> have the
> > >>>>>   native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not
> > >>> aware
> > >>>>>   of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input
> > >>>> from
> > >>> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift,
> > >>> what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> > >>>> If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need
> > >>>> to
> > >>> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> > >>>
> > >>> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
> > >>> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on
> > >>> the discussion?
> > >>>
> > >> [Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
> > >> customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did
> > >> not end up using it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better
> > >>>>> than other
> > >>>>> S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Others?
> > >>>>
> > >
>
>


-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 2. There is no single user from the "group of swift users" jumping into the thread. Do they really care about this feature?

This is a developer list.  Even our users don't have to be on the users
list.  We have at least one known user at the moment, who happens to be
on the 4.x line.  The nature of open source projects (that don't suck)
is that they *assume* users are using the features that exist in the
product, and only remove them when they have (1) a really good reason
and (2) give deprecation warnings.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two days, to setup a swift environment.
2. There is no single user from the "group of swift users" jumping into the thread. Do they really care about this feature?
3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty sure, it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without test.
4.  Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:53 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> It's decisions like this (dropping a previously advertised supported feature
> simply because it wasn't tested) are part of the reasons that have changed
> our plan to use Cloudstack in our corporate environment.  I'm glad to see
> Chip, David, and others pushing back on the decision to just drop it and fix it
> in the next dot release (same story as OVM, go back and read the discussions
> on the choice to drop it and they sound identical to what you're saying) which
> generally means it's getting dropped for good.  It doesn't matter if the
> feature currently works or not or if it's been tested in a while or not, it's being
> advertised as being supported and people/companies make plans based on
> those supported features.  Although my voice doesn't mean a lot, I too
> would vote this as a blocker.  If it's going to be dropped, users need to be
> notified well in advanced so they can be make plans moving forward instead
> of suddenly being stranded on an out-dated version.
> 
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire
> > discussion, and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and
> > 4.1 am worried that this could be come the next delayer to the release
> > of 4.2. At the same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N.,
> > Chip and John B. that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't
> > been attiquately tested in that past releases.
> >
> > My observations -
> > 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> > 2. We don't know who can do it.
> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly 4. Currently we can't even
> > agree on whether we go with the original version or the newer one.
> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> > feature.
> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> >
> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> >
> > Suggestion:
> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we
> > can't validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix,
> > and we don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for
> > 4.2.1 and lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major
> > release, and at the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a
> > user. We need to do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that
> user base too.
> >
> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
> > out with 4.2.1 asap.
> >
> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> >
> > Ready, setŠ fire!
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi"
> > <an...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
> >>> To: Edison Su
> >>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>> supported in 4.2?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> >>>>> To: Edison Su
> >>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>> supported in 4.2?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
> >>>>>> effort to support
> >>>>> Swift.
> >>>>>> But who will make the decision?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...
> >>>>> let's see if others have opinions about this though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Heres how I see it:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pros -
> >>>>> * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> >>>>> * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> >>>>> * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
> >>>>>   long-term support / test efforts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cons -
> >>>>> * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
> >>> have the
> >>>>>   native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not
> >>> aware
> >>>>>   of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input
> >>>> from
> >>> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift,
> >>> what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> >>>> If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need
> >>>> to
> >>> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> >>>
> >>> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
> >>> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on
> >>> the discussion?
> >>>
> >> [Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
> >> customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did
> >> not end up using it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better
> >>>>> than other
> >>>>> S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Others?
> >>>>
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Caleb Call <ca...@me.com>.

It's decisions like this (dropping a previously advertised supported feature simply because it wasn't tested) are part of the reasons that have changed our plan to use Cloudstack in our corporate environment.  I'm glad to see Chip, David, and others pushing back on the decision to just drop it and fix it in the next dot release (same story as OVM, go back and read the discussions on the choice to drop it and they sound identical to what you're saying) which generally means it's getting dropped for good.  It doesn't matter if the feature currently works or not or if it's been tested in a while or not, it's being advertised as being supported and people/companies make plans based on those supported features.  Although my voice doesn't mean a lot, I too would vote this as a blocker.  If it's going to be dropped, users need to be notified well in advanced so they can be make plans moving forward instead of suddenly being stranded on an out-dated version.


On Jul 9, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com> wrote:

> I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
> and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
> that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
> same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B. that
> we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately tested in
> that past releases.
> 
> My observations - 
> 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> 2. We don't know who can do it.
> 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
> 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
> version or the newer one.
> 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> feature. 
> 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
> 
> Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
> 
> Suggestion:
> Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
> validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we don't
> have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and lower
> this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at the same
> time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to do this,
> but at this point we need to do it right for that user base too.
> 
> We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
> We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes out
> with 4.2.1 asap. 
> 
> So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
> 
> Ready, setŠ fire!
> Matt 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <an...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
>>> To: Edison Su
>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>>> 4.2?
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
>>>>> To: Edison Su
>>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>> supported in 4.2?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
>>>>>> effort to support
>>>>> Swift.
>>>>>> But who will make the decision?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's
>>>>> see if others have opinions about this though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Heres how I see it:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pros -
>>>>> * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
>>>>> * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
>>>>> * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
>>>>>   long-term support / test efforts
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cons -
>>>>> * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
>>> have the
>>>>>   native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not
>>> aware
>>>>>   of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
>>>> 
>>>> I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from
>>> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what
>>> we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
>>>> If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to
>>> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
>>> 
>>> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
>>> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on the
>>> discussion?
>>> 
>> [Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
>> customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did not
>> end up using it.
>>>> 
>>>>> * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better
>>>>> than other
>>>>> S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others?
>>>> 
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.

I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B. that
we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately tested in
that past releases.

My observations - 
1. There is not a quick fix here.
2. We don't know who can do it.
3. We're not sure how to do it properly
4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
version or the newer one.
5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
feature. 
6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!

Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
jeopardize 4.2 timely release.

Suggestion:
Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we don't
have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and lower
this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at the same
time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to do this,
but at this point we need to do it right for that user base too.

We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes out
with 4.2.1 asap. 

So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)

Ready, setŠ fire!
Matt 

On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <an...@citrix.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
>> To: Edison Su
>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>> 4.2?
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
>> > > To: Edison Su
>> > > Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>> supported in 4.2?
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>> > > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
>> > > > effort to support
>> > > Swift.
>> > > > But who will make the decision?
>> > >
>> > > We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
>> > >
>> > > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's
>> > > see if others have opinions about this though.
>> > >
>> > > Heres how I see it:
>> > >
>> > > Pros -
>> > >  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
>> > >  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
>> > >  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
>> > >    long-term support / test efforts
>> > >
>> > > Cons -
>> > >  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
>> have the
>> > >    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not
>> aware
>> > >    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
>> >
>> > I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from
>> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what
>> we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
>> > If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to
>> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
>> 
>> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
>> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on the
>> discussion?
>> 
>[Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
>customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did not
>end up using it.
>> >
>> > >  * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
>> > >
>> > > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better
>> > > than other
>> > > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
>> > >
>> > > Others?
>> >

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> 
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> > > To: Edison Su
> > > Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> supported in 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
> > > > effort to support
> > > Swift.
> > > > But who will make the decision?
> > >
> > > We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> > >
> > > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's
> > > see if others have opinions about this though.
> > >
> > > Heres how I see it:
> > >
> > > Pros -
> > >  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> > >  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> > >  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
> > >    long-term support / test efforts
> > >
> > > Cons -
> > >  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
> have the
> > >    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not
> aware
> > >    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> >
> > I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from
> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what
> we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> > If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to
> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> 
> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
> integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on the
> discussion?
> 
[Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did not end up using it.
> >
> > >  * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> > >
> > > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better
> > > than other
> > > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> > >
> > > Others?
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> > To: Edison Su
> > Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
> > Swift.
> > > But who will make the decision?
> > 
> > We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> > 
> > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's see if others
> > have opinions about this though.
> > 
> > Heres how I see it:
> > 
> > Pros -
> >  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> >  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> >  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
> >    long-term support / test efforts
> > 
> > Cons -
> >  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only have the
> >    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not aware
> >    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> 
> I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to get domain expert involved in the discuss.

Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
integration?  If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on the
discussion?

> 
> >  * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> > 
> > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better than other
> > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> > 
> > Others?
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> > To: Edison Su
> > Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
> > Swift.
> > > But who will make the decision?
> > 
> > We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> > 
> > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's see if others
> > have opinions about this though.
> > 
> > Heres how I see it:
> > 
> > Pros -
> >  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> >  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> >  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
> >    long-term support / test efforts
> > 
> > Cons -
> >  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only have the
> >    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not aware
> >    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> 
> I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from
> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift,
> what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need
> to get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> 

(Sigh)

Whoever is going to fix, could you get in touch with the user who
reported CLOUDSTACK-3350? They are using swift in *production*, with
*4.0.1*.  And the bug reporter has offered to test 4.2 via JIRA. 

-- 
Prasanna.,

------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
> Swift.
> > But who will make the decision?
> 
> We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.
> 
> If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's see if others
> have opinions about this though.
> 
> Heres how I see it:
> 
> Pros -
>  * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
>  * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
>  * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
>    long-term support / test efforts
> 
> Cons -
>  * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only have the
>    native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not aware
>    of the Swift API's stability between their releases)

I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to get domain expert involved in the discuss.

>  * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> 
> Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better than other
> S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> 
> Others?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
> But who will make the decision?

We, as a community.  It's *always* that answer.

If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...  let's see
if others have opinions about this though.

Heres how I see it:

Pros - 
 * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
 * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
 * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the
   long-term support / test efforts

Cons -
 * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only have the
   native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not aware
   of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
 * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).

Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better than
other S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.

Others?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform swiftstack:
> http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/

Just to be clear, we're not sure about 4.0 or 4.1 at all.  All that
has been said is that it wasn't in the test plan for those releases,
due to no reason to add them to the regression testing plans being
shared with any of the testers.  ;-)

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.

I've also sent a request off to Mirantis to see if they could lend any
expertise to the fire to help.

Cheers,
Matt 

On 7/9/13 3:19 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 03:15 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>> Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement
>> multi-part upload?
>
>I've sent an email to John at SwiftStack to see if they might be able to
>jump into the conversation.
>
>Best,
>
>jzb
>-- 
>Joe Brockmeier
>jzb@zonker.net
>Twitter: @jzb
>http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 03:15 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement
> multi-part upload?

I've sent an email to John at SwiftStack to see if they might be able to
jump into the conversation. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

Edison,

I did not say that Swift can't handle files greater than 5 GB.  With S3, you must use multi-part uploads in order to upload a file greater than 5GB.  Therefore, Swift's S3 compatibility layer must be compatible with the S3 multipart upload API in order to work with CloudStack.  Please see my previous remarks regarding the differences in approach between the two APIs for more a detailed explanation regarding the incompatibilities and the difficulties for Swift to support S3-style multi-part uploads.

Thanks,
-John

On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:31 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> Edison,
>> 
>> TL;DR The shorter path is to re-implement/fix the Swift driver.
>> 
>> Multipart upload would need to implemented in Swift, not in CloudStack.
>> Therefore, such a change would need to be accepted and released by the
>> OpenStack project before the 4.2.0 release.  We would also be stranding any
>> of our current users who cannot or will not upgrade their Swift instances.
>> 
>> Knowing what it took to implement it in Riak CS, multi-part upload was a lot
>> of work to implement in a Dynamo-based system.  The S3 has the following
>> three-phase process:
>> 
>> 	1. Initiate a Upload: Declare the number of parts and their size
>> 	2. Submit each part per the definition in Step 1 (e.g. 50 parts = 50
>> HTTP PUTs)
>> 	3. Complete the multi-part upload: Declare that all parts have been
>> uploaded which causes the object to become available
>> 
>> In contrast, Swift uses HTTP chunking to solve the same problem with one
>> API call.  In addition to providing all of the reliability guarantees of the S3 API,
>> an implementor of S3 multipart uploads will have to provide a way to
>> translate the 3-phase model into the single call model used by Swift.
> 
> Seems swift client can support upload files more than 5GB: 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Swift_Upload_Large_File
> 
> Ok, so we should just re-implement/fix the existing swift driver.
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>> 
>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement multi-part
>> upload?
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:07 PM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>>> 
>>>> if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform
>>>> swiftstack:
>>>> http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Edison,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack
>>>>> must use
>>>> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the
>>>> Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -John
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>>>>>> To: Edison Su
>>>>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>>>> supported in
>>>> 4.2?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>>>>>> supported in
>>>>>>> 4.2?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su
>>>>>>>>>> <Ed...@citrix.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This
>>>>>>>>> will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any
>>>>>>>>> volunteers can help the
>>>>>>> integration?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker
>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands
>>>>>>>>>> them on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
>>>>>>>>> object store changes?
>>>>>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will
>>>>>>>> change it or not, as
>>>>>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
>>>>>> effort to support
>>>> Swift.
>>>>>> But who will make the decision?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily
>>>>>>> mean that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested
>>>>>>> only because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need
>>>>>>> to perform regression testing of that feature.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure
>>>>>>> out what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".
>>>>>>> If necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store
>>>>>>> branch merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's
>>>>>>> why I'm asking
>>>> about effort to fix it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -chip
>>>>> 
>>> 
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:31 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Edison,
> 
> TL;DR The shorter path is to re-implement/fix the Swift driver.
> 
> Multipart upload would need to implemented in Swift, not in CloudStack.
> Therefore, such a change would need to be accepted and released by the
> OpenStack project before the 4.2.0 release.  We would also be stranding any
> of our current users who cannot or will not upgrade their Swift instances.
> 
> Knowing what it took to implement it in Riak CS, multi-part upload was a lot
> of work to implement in a Dynamo-based system.  The S3 has the following
> three-phase process:
> 
> 	1. Initiate a Upload: Declare the number of parts and their size
> 	2. Submit each part per the definition in Step 1 (e.g. 50 parts = 50
> HTTP PUTs)
> 	3. Complete the multi-part upload: Declare that all parts have been
> uploaded which causes the object to become available
> 
> In contrast, Swift uses HTTP chunking to solve the same problem with one
> API call.  In addition to providing all of the reliability guarantees of the S3 API,
> an implementor of S3 multipart uploads will have to provide a way to
> translate the 3-phase model into the single call model used by Swift.

Seems swift client can support upload files more than 5GB: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Swift_Upload_Large_File

Ok, so we should just re-implement/fix the existing swift driver.

> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement multi-part
> upload?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:07 PM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform
> >> swiftstack:
> >> http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Edison,
> >>>
> >>> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack
> >>> must use
> >> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the
> >> Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -John
> >>>
> >>> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
> >>>>> To: Edison Su
> >>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>>>> supported in
> >> 4.2?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >>>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>>>>>> supported in
> >>>>> 4.2?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su
> >>>>>>>> <Ed...@citrix.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> >>>>>>>>> that, we only
> >>>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> >>>>>>>>> community, do
> >>>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This
> >>>>>>> will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any
> >>>>>>> volunteers can help the
> >>>>> integration?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker
> IMO.
> >>>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands
> >>>>>>>> them on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --David
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> >>>>>>> object store changes?
> >>>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will
> >>>>>> change it or not, as
> >>>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
> >>>>> because it
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero
> >>>> effort to support
> >> Swift.
> >>>> But who will make the decision?
> >>>>
> >>>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily
> >>>>> mean that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested
> >>>>> only because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need
> >>>>> to perform regression testing of that feature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure
> >>>>> out what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".
> >>>>> If necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store
> >>>>> branch merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's
> >>>>> why I'm asking
> >> about effort to fix it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -chip
> >>>
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

Edison,

TL;DR The shorter path is to re-implement/fix the Swift driver.

Multipart upload would need to implemented in Swift, not in CloudStack.  Therefore, such a change would need to be accepted and released by the OpenStack project before the 4.2.0 release.  We would also be stranding any of our current users who cannot or will not upgrade their Swift instances.

Knowing what it took to implement it in Riak CS, multi-part upload was a lot of work to implement in a Dynamo-based system.  The S3 has the following three-phase process:

	1. Initiate a Upload: Declare the number of parts and their size
	2. Submit each part per the definition in Step 1 (e.g. 50 parts = 50 HTTP PUTs)
	3. Complete the multi-part upload: Declare that all parts have been uploaded which causes the object to become available

In contrast, Swift uses HTTP chunking to solve the same problem with one API call.  In addition to providing all of the reliability guarantees of the S3 API, an implementor of S3 multipart uploads will have to provide a way to translate the 3-phase model into the single call model used by Swift.  

Thanks,
-John

On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement multi-part upload?
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:07 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform
>> swiftstack:
>> http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Edison,
>>> 
>>> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use
>> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3
>> compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>>> 
>>> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
>>> 
>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>>>> To: Edison Su
>>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>> 4.2?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>>>> supported in
>>>>> 4.2?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
>>>>>>> help the
>>>>> integration?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
>>>>>>> object store changes?
>>>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
>>>>>> it or not, as
>>>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
>>>>> because it
>>>> 
>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
>> Swift.
>>>> But who will make the decision?
>>>> 
>>>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily
>>>>> mean that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested
>>>>> only because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to
>>>>> perform regression testing of that feature.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
>>>>> what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If
>>>>> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch
>>>>> merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm asking
>> about effort to fix it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -chip
>>> 
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement multi-part upload?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:07 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform
> swiftstack:
> http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/
> 
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:
> 
> > Edison,
> >
> > Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use
> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3
> compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> >
> > On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
> >>> To: Edison Su
> >>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>>>> supported in
> >>> 4.2?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> >>>>>>> that, we only
> >>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> >>>>>>> community, do
> >>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> >>>>> help the
> >>> integration?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> >>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> >>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> >>>>> object store changes?
> >>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
> >>>> it or not, as
> >>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
> >>> because it
> >>
> >> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
> Swift.
> >> But who will make the decision?
> >>
> >>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily
> >>> mean that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested
> >>> only because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to
> >>> perform regression testing of that feature.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
> >>> what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If
> >>> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch
> >>> merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm asking
> about effort to fix it.
> >>>
> >>> -chip
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.

if swift does not work anymore in 4.0 or 4.1 maybe be should inform swiftstack:
http://swiftstack.com/cloudstack/


On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, John Burwell <jb...@basho.com> wrote:

> Edison,
> 
> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>> To: Edison Su
>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>>> 4.2?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
>>> integration?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
>>>>> store changes?
>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just because it
>> 
>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
>> But who will make the decision?
>> 
>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it
>>> wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack
>>> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of
>>> that feature.
>>> 
>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to
>>> do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary, I'd say that
>>> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I don't want to see
>>> that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it.
>>> 
>>> -chip
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

Edison,

My bad thing for the Python client oversight and +1 to simply carrying the 4.1.x implementation forward.  I have added an enhancement ticket [1] for post-4.2.0 to move a Java native client when we have the proper time to assess/contribute to upstream projects.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3536

On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> The 4.1 swift does support >5GB upload, AFAIK, as it uses python swift client, which can support that. So I’ll reuse whatever code we have in 4.1.
>  
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 8:47 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>  
> All,
>  
> The openstack-java-client [1] looks to include a decent Swift client (a tutorial[2] is also available).  It is also Apache v2 licensed.  From my cursory review, it doesn't appear to support HTTP chunking (i.e. support for > 5GB objects) or progress reporting.  However, the 4.1.x Swift integration does not support these features.  As such, it could be a good starting point to provide parity with the current Swift integration facilities.  
>  
> In general, I would much prefer using a purpose built client than an abstraction layer like jclouds for this type of work.  We have a set of storage abstractions and adapting them to another set of storage abstractions just feels a bit ungainly.  I think we could modify the openstack-java-client to include the missing features and end with much more maintainable result.
>  
> Thanks,
> -John
>  
> [1]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk
> [2]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk/wiki/Swift-Tutorial
>  
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
> 
> So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If
> it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what
> are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not
> exist in 4.2)?
> 
> I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break
> existing environments in a new release on purpose.
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

The 4.1 swift does support >5GB upload, AFAIK, as it uses python swift client, which can support that. So I'll reuse whatever code we have in 4.1.

From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 8:47 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Edison Su
Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

All,

The openstack-java-client [1] looks to include a decent Swift client (a tutorial[2] is also available).  It is also Apache v2 licensed.  From my cursory review, it doesn't appear to support HTTP chunking (i.e. support for > 5GB objects) or progress reporting.  However, the 4.1.x Swift integration does not support these features.  As such, it could be a good starting point to provide parity with the current Swift integration facilities.

In general, I would much prefer using a purpose built client than an abstraction layer like jclouds for this type of work.  We have a set of storage abstractions and adapting them to another set of storage abstractions just feels a bit ungainly.  I think we could modify the openstack-java-client to include the missing features and end with much more maintainable result.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk
[2]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk/wiki/Swift-Tutorial

On Jul 15, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:

So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If
it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what
are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not
exist in 4.2)?

I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break
existing environments in a new release on purpose.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

All,

The openstack-java-client [1] looks to include a decent Swift client (a tutorial[2] is also available).  It is also Apache v2 licensed.  From my cursory review, it doesn't appear to support HTTP chunking (i.e. support for > 5GB objects) or progress reporting.  However, the 4.1.x Swift integration does not support these features.  As such, it could be a good starting point to provide parity with the current Swift integration facilities.  

In general, I would much prefer using a purpose built client than an abstraction layer like jclouds for this type of work.  We have a set of storage abstractions and adapting them to another set of storage abstractions just feels a bit ungainly.  I think we could modify the openstack-java-client to include the missing features and end with much more maintainable result.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk
[2]: https://github.com/woorea/openstack-java-sdk/wiki/Swift-Tutorial

On Jul 15, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
>> So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If
>> it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what
>> are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not
>> exist in 4.2)?
> 
> I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break
> existing environments in a new release on purpose.
>

Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.

I totally agree. It would be a really tough decision to risk breaking
environments that are using this feature.


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:25 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> supported in
> > 4.2?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
> > > So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious:
> > > If it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code
> > > freeze), what are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing
> > > this feature to not exist in 4.2)?
> >
> > I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break
> existing
> > environments in a new release on purpose.
>
> +1 Same thoughts here.
>
> --Alex
>



-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

RE: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:25 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Edison Su
> Subject: Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
> > So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious:
> > If it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code
> > freeze), what are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing
> > this feature to not exist in 4.2)?
> 
> I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break existing
> environments in a new release on purpose.

+1 Same thoughts here.

--Alex

Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 07:08:41PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote:
> So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If
> it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what
> are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not
> exist in 4.2)?

I'm personally not happy either way, but I'd much rather not break
existing environments in a new release on purpose.

Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.

So, I haven't been following this thread in detail, but was curious: If
it's too much work to fix this by the end of the month (code freeze), what
are we planning on doing (moving 4.2 back or allowing this feature to not
exist in 4.2)?


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <ye...@inktank.com> wrote:

>
> I should point at ceph, and specifically the ceph rados gateway (rgw), as
> it's been mentioned before in this thread. As you may know, ceph has
> already been integrated with cloudstack through the ceph block storage
> (rbd). So installations that already use ceph through that may get two for
> the price of one. Also, with rgw you can access data both through the swift
> api, and through the S3 api. It supports both the S3 multi-part upload, and
> the swift big-file upload api.
> We'll be happy to assist with getting rgw to seamlessly work within
> cloudstack.
>
> Yehuda
>
> On 07/09/2013 01:14 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>
>> It sounds like there are a lot of work to do, to support multi-part
>> upload:
>>
>> http://www.mirantis.com/blog/**large-objects-in-cloud-**storages/<http://www.mirantis.com/blog/large-objects-in-cloud-storages/>
>> " As you can see, Amazon S3 API is more high-level while Swift API for
>> large objects is pretty raw. Swift doesn't make a distinction between
>> objects and object parts. This means it's the user's duty to take care of
>> the parts. E.g., you should make sure that the prefix in the manifest
>> doesn't match other objects by mistake. If you want to delete an object,
>> you have to remove its parts as well, and so on."
>> So it's a new issue that not happened on previous release.
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:57 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>>> 4.2?
>>>
>>> Edison,
>>>
>>> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must
>>> use
>>> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's
>>> S3
>>> compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>>>
>>> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/**wiki/Swift/**APIFeatureComparison<https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.**com<ch...@sungard.com>
>>>>> ]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>>>> To: Edison Su
>>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
>>>>> in 4.2?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.**com<ch...@sungard.com>
>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>>>> supported in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.2?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
>>>>>>> help the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> integration?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
>>>>>>> object store changes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
>>>>>> it or not, as
>>>>>>
>>>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
>>>>> because it
>>>>>
>>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to
>>>> support
>>>>
>>> Swift.
>>>
>>>> But who will make the decision?
>>>>
>>>>  wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean
>>>>> that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only
>>>>> because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to
>>>>> perform regression testing of that feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
>>>>> what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If
>>>>> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch
>>>>> merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm
>>>>> asking
>>>>>
>>>> about effort to fix it.
>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

Re: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Yehuda Sadeh <ye...@inktank.com>.

I should point at ceph, and specifically the ceph rados gateway (rgw), 
as it's been mentioned before in this thread. As you may know, ceph has 
already been integrated with cloudstack through the ceph block storage 
(rbd). So installations that already use ceph through that may get two 
for the price of one. Also, with rgw you can access data both through 
the swift api, and through the S3 api. It supports both the S3 
multi-part upload, and the swift big-file upload api.
We'll be happy to assist with getting rgw to seamlessly work within 
cloudstack.

Yehuda

On 07/09/2013 01:14 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> It sounds like there are a lot of work to do, to support multi-part upload:
>
> http://www.mirantis.com/blog/large-objects-in-cloud-storages/
> " As you can see, Amazon S3 API is more high-level while Swift API for large objects is pretty raw. Swift doesn't make a distinction between objects and object parts. This means it's the user's duty to take care of the parts. E.g., you should make sure that the prefix in the manifest doesn't match other objects by mistake. If you want to delete an object, you have to remove its parts as well, and so on."
> So it's a new issue that not happened on previous release.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:57 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>
>> Edison,
>>
>> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use
>> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3
>> compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>>>> To: Edison Su
>>>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
>>>>>> supported in
>>>> 4.2?
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>>>> that, we only
>>>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>>>> community, do
>>>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
>>>>>> help the
>>>> integration?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
>>>>>> object store changes?
>>>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
>>>>> it or not, as
>>>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
>>>> because it
>>> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
>> Swift.
>>> But who will make the decision?
>>>
>>>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean
>>>> that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only
>>>> because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to
>>>> perform regression testing of that feature.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
>>>> what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If
>>>> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch
>>>> merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm asking
>> about effort to fix it.
>>>> -chip
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

It sounds like there are a lot of work to do, to support multi-part upload:

http://www.mirantis.com/blog/large-objects-in-cloud-storages/
" As you can see, Amazon S3 API is more high-level while Swift API for large objects is pretty raw. Swift doesn't make a distinction between objects and object parts. This means it's the user's duty to take care of the parts. E.g., you should make sure that the prefix in the manifest doesn't match other objects by mistake. If you want to delete an object, you have to remove its parts as well, and so on. "
So it's a new issue that not happened on previous release.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:57 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Edison,
> 
> Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use
> in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3
> compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> [1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
> >> To: Edison Su
> >> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> >>>> supported in
> >> 4.2?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> >>>>>> that, we only
> >>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> >>>>>> community, do
> >>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> >>>> help the
> >> integration?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> >>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> >>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --David
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> >>>> object store changes?
> >>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
> >>> it or not, as
> >> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
> >> because it
> >
> > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support
> Swift.
> > But who will make the decision?
> >
> >> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean
> >> that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only
> >> because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need to
> >> perform regression testing of that feature.
> >>
> >> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
> >> what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If
> >> necessary, I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch
> >> merge...  I don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm asking
> about effort to fix it.
> >>
> >> -chip

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

Edison,

Swift does not support S3 multi-part uploads [1] which CloudStack must use in order to store files larger than 5 GB.  Therefore, using the Swift's S3 compatibility layer is not a viable workaround.

Thanks,
-John

[1]:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison

On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
>> To: Edison Su
>> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
>> 4.2?
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
>>>>>> that, we only
>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
>>>>>> community, do
>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
>> integration?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
>>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
>>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --David
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
>>>> store changes?
>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just because it
> 
> If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
> But who will make the decision?
> 
>> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it
>> wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack
>> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of
>> that feature.
>> 
>> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to
>> do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary, I'd say that
>> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I don't want to see
>> that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it.
>> 
>> -chip

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> > > >> that, we only
> > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> > > >> community, do
> > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
> integration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> > > store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >
> >
> 
> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just because it

If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
But who will make the decision?

> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it
> wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack
> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of
> that feature.
> 
> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to
> do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary, I'd say that
> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I don't want to see
> that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it.
> 
> -chip

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some
> > efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> > > engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> > > previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> > 
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object store
> > changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> 
>

So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just
because it wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't
necessarily mean that it wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't
tested only because of a lack of change that triggered the expected need
to perform regression testing of that feature.

I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out
what to do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary,
I'd say that we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I
don't want to see that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about
effort to fix it.

-chip

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:23 PM
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> We should support whatever is supported earlier at minimum.

The problem is we don't know what is "whatever is supported", as this feature is not been tested for years, is anybody knows its status on 4.0, 4.1?

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:20 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> > Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> >
> > Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not
> > comprehensive [1][2]
> 
> I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge
> about swift.
> Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting
> Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.
> 
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> > [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> > storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> > s3_api.html
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in 4.2?
> > >
> > > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> > > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > /Sudha
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in 4.2?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > > supported
> > > in 4.2?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> > > > >> that, we only
> > > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> > > > >> community, do
> > > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> > > > help
> > > the integration?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> > > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > > >
> > > > > --David
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> > > > object store changes?
> > > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
> > > it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:23 PM
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> We should support whatever is supported earlier at minimum.

The problem is we don't know what is "whatever is supported", as this feature is not been tested for years, is anybody knows its status on 4.0, 4.1?

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:20 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> > Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> >
> > Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not
> > comprehensive [1][2]
> 
> I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge
> about swift.
> Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting
> Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.
> 
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> > [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> > storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> > s3_api.html
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in 4.2?
> > >
> > > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> > > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > /Sudha
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported in 4.2?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > > supported
> > > in 4.2?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> > > > >> that, we only
> > > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> > > > >> community, do
> > > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> > > > help
> > > the integration?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> > > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > > >
> > > > > --David
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> > > > object store changes?
> > > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
> > > it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.

We should support whatever is supported earlier at minimum. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:20 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> 
> Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not 
> comprehensive [1][2]

I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge about swift.
Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.

> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> s3_api.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported in 4.2?
> >
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > > supported
> > in 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > > >> that, we only
> > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > > >> community, do
> > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > > help
> > the integration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the 
> > > object store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change 
> > it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.

We should support whatever is supported earlier at minimum. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:20 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> 
> Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not 
> comprehensive [1][2]

I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge about swift.
Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.

> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> s3_api.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported in 4.2?
> >
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > > supported
> > in 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > > >> that, we only
> > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > > >> community, do
> > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > > help
> > the integration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the 
> > > object store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change 
> > it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> 
> Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not
> comprehensive [1][2]

I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge about swift.
Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.

> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> s3_api.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> > in 4.2?
> >
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> > in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported
> > in 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> > > >> that, we only
> > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> > > >> community, do
> > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> > > help
> > the integration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> > > store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it
> > or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1?
> 
> Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not
> comprehensive [1][2]

I am not the best person to answer the question, as I have zero knowledge about swift.
Is there anybody really using Swift on CloudStack, or anybody is supporting Swift? Please gives us advice on how to support swift better.

> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-
> storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-
> s3_api.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> > in 4.2?
> >
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> > code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> > in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be
> > > supported
> > in 4.2?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> > > >> that, we only
> > > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> > > >> community, do
> > > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> > > help
> > the integration?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> > > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> > > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> > > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> > > store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it
> > or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.

Thanks for the offer Angie. But community has been discussing on what has been supported so far and where to go from there. That discussion has to come to closure. 
The link you have provided is not accessible to community. If possible can you post the test plan in Test plan area [1] on cwiki. 
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Test+Plans

-----Original Message-----
From: Angeline Shen 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:05 PM
To: Sudha Ponnaganti; 'dev@cloudstack.apache.org'; Animesh Chaturvedi; 'chip.childers@sungard.com'
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Animesh, Sudha:

1. For Cloudstack Acton 3.0.0 release,  Swift 1.4.4  was integrated and tested .

2. Thanks to Sudha located my old documents on  http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display/DesignDocs/Object+Storage+%28Swift%29+test+plan

3. It seems  Swift  1.9.1   is  one latest version  that can be integrated with Campo.

4. I'll work on   updating cwiki  with Swift 4.2 integration.

Thanks.




-----Original Message-----
From: Angeline Shen
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:51 PM
To: Sudha Ponnaganti
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha:

I wrote  this document  for Acton.  
I was   searching   for swift docs  at http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display   earlier   and the site did not return.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Angeline Shen
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Who wrote this one??

http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display/DesignDocs/Object+Storage+%28Swift%29+test+plan


-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:33 PM
To: Angeline Shen
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Angie,

Do you know where the PRD or test plan for this exist??
I have a line item in Bonita to cover and I remember that we discussed this when I started and covered it in Bonita by you. 



Thanks
/sudha

-----Original Message-----
From: Angeline Shen
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:18 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Animesh, Sudha:

Swift integration was done for Acton  3.0.0 release.  Anthony Xu was developer & I was QA .
I will be very happy to work on test plan & testing for 4.2.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Animesh Chaturvedi; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

It was tested pre-4.0 release. As mentioned earlier, there were no changes or reported issues in this area. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Animesh Chaturvedi
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1? 

Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not comprehensive [1][2]

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-s3_api.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported
> in 4.2?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > >> that, we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > >> community, do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > help
> the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. 
> > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
> > store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it 
> or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Angeline Shen <An...@citrix.com>.

Animesh, Sudha:

1. For Cloudstack Acton 3.0.0 release,  Swift 1.4.4  was integrated and tested .

2. Thanks to Sudha located my old documents on  http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display/DesignDocs/Object+Storage+%28Swift%29+test+plan

3. It seems  Swift  1.9.1   is  one latest version  that can be integrated with Campo.

4. I'll work on   updating cwiki  with Swift 4.2 integration.

Thanks.




-----Original Message-----
From: Angeline Shen 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:51 PM
To: Sudha Ponnaganti
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha:

I wrote  this document  for Acton.  
I was   searching   for swift docs  at http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display   earlier   and the site did not return.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Angeline Shen
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Who wrote this one??

http://wiki-ccp.citrix.com/display/DesignDocs/Object+Storage+%28Swift%29+test+plan


-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:33 PM
To: Angeline Shen
Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan; Chandan Purushothama
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Angie,

Do you know where the PRD or test plan for this exist??
I have a line item in Bonita to cover and I remember that we discussed this when I started and covered it in Bonita by you. 



Thanks
/sudha

-----Original Message-----
From: Angeline Shen
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:18 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Animesh, Sudha:

Swift integration was done for Acton  3.0.0 release.  Anthony Xu was developer & I was QA .
I will be very happy to work on test plan & testing for 4.2.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Animesh Chaturvedi; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

It was tested pre-4.0 release. As mentioned earlier, there were no changes or reported issues in this area. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Animesh Chaturvedi
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1? 

Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not comprehensive [1][2]

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-s3_api.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported
> in 4.2?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > >> that, we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > >> community, do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > help
> the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. 
> > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
> > store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it 
> or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Angeline Shen <An...@citrix.com>.

Animesh, Sudha:

Swift integration was done for Acton  3.0.0 release.  Anthony Xu was developer & I was QA .
I will be very happy to work on test plan & testing for 4.2.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Animesh Chaturvedi; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

It was tested pre-4.0 release. As mentioned earlier, there were no changes or reported issues in this area. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Animesh Chaturvedi
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1? 

Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not comprehensive [1][2]

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-s3_api.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported
> in 4.2?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > >> that, we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > >> community, do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > help
> the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. 
> > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
> > store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it 
> or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.

It was tested pre-4.0 release. As mentioned earlier, there were no changes or reported issues in this area. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Animesh Chaturvedi 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1? 

Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not comprehensive [1][2]

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-s3_api.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no 
> code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported 
> in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be 
> > supported
> in 4.2?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is 
> > >> that, we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the 
> > >> community, do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can 
> > help
> the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. 
> > > It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them 
> > > on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
> > store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it 
> or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.

Sudha was Swift working for 4.0 or 4.1? 

Edison couldn't we use S3 API for Swift? The support is probably not comprehensive [1][2]

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/APIFeatureComparison
[2] http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-object-storage/admin/content/configuring-openstack-object-storage-with-s3_api.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:31 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> 
> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> > To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported
> in 4.2?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that,
> > >> we only
> > have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community,
> > >> do
> > we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> > take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help
> the integration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> > > engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> > > previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
> > Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> > store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or
> not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:56:24PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:53 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > Edison,
> > 
> > As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following topics:
> > 
> > 	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
> > 	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
> > 	3. Feature removal process
> > 
> > To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have regression test
> > and defect triage processes to address items 1 and 2.  If you feel that they
> > can be improved, then we should discuss those improvements in a separate
> > thread.  No community or system will be perfect.  I believe the best we can
> > do is seek to do it better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that
> > we did something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it
> > poorly or removing a feature on which users are relying.
> > 
> > 
> > I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal without
> > community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in a previous
> 
> This feature is not been tested since about one and half year ago, nobody knows the status of swift integration.
> If we can't claim to support Swift in 4.0, 4.1, then why you think I am removing a feature?

Edison, I'm working under the assumption that Swift support was simply
missed in the refactoring.  If this isn't the case, then please be
explicit that you made the decision to not include it.  If this is the
case, then can't we agree that it needs to be rectified?

-chip

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:01:08PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:00 AM
> > To: Edison Su
> > Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:56:24PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:53 AM
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> > > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> > 4.2?
> > > >
> > > > Edison,
> > > >
> > > > As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following
> > topics:
> > > >
> > > > 	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
> > > > 	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
> > > > 	3. Feature removal process
> > > >
> > > > To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have
> > > > regression test and defect triage processes to address items 1 and
> > > > 2.  If you feel that they can be improved, then we should discuss
> > > > those improvements in a separate thread.  No community or system
> > > > will be perfect.  I believe the best we can do is seek to do it
> > > > better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that we did
> > > > something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it poorly or
> > removing a feature on which users are relying.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal
> > > > without community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in
> > > > a previous
> > >
> > > This feature is not been tested since about one and half year ago, nobody
> > knows the status of swift integration.
> > > If we can't claim to support Swift in 4.0, 4.1, then why you think I am
> > removing a feature?
> > 
> > But we *do* claim that support. See [1].
> > 
> > Not having tested it is *not* the same as saying that it isn't supported.
> > 
> > [1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-
> > US/Apache_CloudStack/4.1.0/html/Installation_Guide/about-secondary-
> > storage.html
> 
> IMHO, saying something is supported without tested for each release is worse than saying not supported.
> 
> 

Fine, so we screwed up as a community.  I guess it needs to be tested
for all feature releases.

That has nothing to do with the issue of simply "dropping" support of
what might very well have been a functional feature.  Additionally, I
know of at least one major user of older cloudstack versions that *DO* use
swift for secondary storage.  Are you suggesting that we strand another
group of users *on purpose* again?

Here's my issue...  in the rush to make changes to the architecture and
/ or to get a new feature in, we have now run into the situation where
we have asked ourselves to simply drop a function *after the
fact*.  This is unhealthy for the project, crappy for our users, and
a sloppy way to evolve a software system.  I'm not blaming you for this
at all, but the object-storage architectural changes are an example of
this behaviour.  We need to stop this habit.

-chip

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:00 AM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:56:24PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:53 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> > > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> > >
> > > Edison,
> > >
> > > As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following
> topics:
> > >
> > > 	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
> > > 	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
> > > 	3. Feature removal process
> > >
> > > To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have
> > > regression test and defect triage processes to address items 1 and
> > > 2.  If you feel that they can be improved, then we should discuss
> > > those improvements in a separate thread.  No community or system
> > > will be perfect.  I believe the best we can do is seek to do it
> > > better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that we did
> > > something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it poorly or
> removing a feature on which users are relying.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal
> > > without community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in
> > > a previous
> >
> > This feature is not been tested since about one and half year ago, nobody
> knows the status of swift integration.
> > If we can't claim to support Swift in 4.0, 4.1, then why you think I am
> removing a feature?
> 
> But we *do* claim that support. See [1].
> 
> Not having tested it is *not* the same as saying that it isn't supported.
> 
> [1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-
> US/Apache_CloudStack/4.1.0/html/Installation_Guide/about-secondary-
> storage.html

IMHO, saying something is supported without tested for each release is worse than saying not supported.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:56:24PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:53 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> > 
> > Edison,
> > 
> > As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following topics:
> > 
> > 	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
> > 	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
> > 	3. Feature removal process
> > 
> > To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have regression test
> > and defect triage processes to address items 1 and 2.  If you feel that they
> > can be improved, then we should discuss those improvements in a separate
> > thread.  No community or system will be perfect.  I believe the best we can
> > do is seek to do it better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that
> > we did something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it
> > poorly or removing a feature on which users are relying.
> > 
> > 
> > I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal without
> > community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in a previous
> 
> This feature is not been tested since about one and half year ago, nobody knows the status of swift integration.
> If we can't claim to support Swift in 4.0, 4.1, then why you think I am removing a feature?

But we *do* claim that support. See [1].

Not having tested it is *not* the same as saying that it isn't
supported.

[1] http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/Apache_CloudStack/4.1.0/html/Installation_Guide/about-secondary-storage.html

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:53 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> Edison,
> 
> As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following topics:
> 
> 	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
> 	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
> 	3. Feature removal process
> 
> To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have regression test
> and defect triage processes to address items 1 and 2.  If you feel that they
> can be improved, then we should discuss those improvements in a separate
> thread.  No community or system will be perfect.  I believe the best we can
> do is seek to do it better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that
> we did something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it
> poorly or removing a feature on which users are relying.
> 
> 
> I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal without
> community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in a previous

This feature is not been tested since about one and half year ago, nobody knows the status of swift integration.
If we can't claim to support Swift in 4.0, 4.1, then why you think I am removing a feature?

> release, test it and lodge defects or request help to regression test it.  We
> have a maintenance release cycle through which we can address these types
> of defects.  As I stated previously, existing feature defects are not a
> justification to remove that feature.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > And I want to point out, that, it's easy to say this feature and that feature
> are supported in certain release, but without fully tested for each release,
> only God will know the status.
> > For example, there is a bug in 4.2:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2583, it says can't
> backup snapshot from primary storage into S3 if the hypervisor is xenserver.
> > It's fired for 4.2, but actually, 4.1 will have the same issue.
> > Will we claim, to support S3 in 4.1, while the major functionality of S3 is
> broken?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of
> >> Swift support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first
> >> round review, but I completely lost track of it in the sea of items being
> addressed.
> >>
> >> This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community
> discussion.
> >> A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not
> >> translate to no usage.  It also does not provide license for a
> >> feature to be dropped without community discussion and consensus.
> >>
> >> In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I
> >> am concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release
> cycles.
> >> Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To
> >> me, it is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality
> >> with which I was familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other
> >> parts, you will need to fill in the gaps."  To my mind, a feature
> >> re-implementation should not be acceptable until it implements all of the
> capabilities it is replacing.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -John
> >>
> >> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
> >> <su...@citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no
> >>> code
> >> changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> /Sudha
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> >>> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is
> >>>>>> that, we only
> >>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the
> >>>>>> community, do
> >>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can
> >>>> help the
> >> integration?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO.
> >>>>> It engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them
> >>>>> on previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --David
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the
> >>>> object store changes?
> >>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change
> >>> it or not, as
> >> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >>>
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

Edison,

As I read through this thread, we seem to be conflating the following topics:

	1. Feature regression testing per release cycle
	2. Identifying and back porting defect fixes to previous releases
	3. Feature removal process

To my mind, these topics are completely unrelated.  We have regression test and defect triage processes to address items 1 and 2.  If you feel that they can be improved, then we should discuss those improvements in a separate thread.  No community or system will be perfect.  I believe the best we can do is seek to do it better today than yesterday.  To that end, observing that we did something poorly in the past does not justify continuing to do it poorly or removing a feature on which users are relying.  

I am concerned about item 3 -- the merge of a feature removal without community consensus.  If you *think* a feature is broken in a previous release, test it and lodge defects or request help to regression test it.  We have a maintenance release cycle through which we can address these types of defects.  As I stated previously, existing feature defects are not a justification to remove that feature.

Thanks,
-John

On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

> And I want to point out, that, it's easy to say this feature and that feature are supported in certain release, but without fully tested for each release, only God will know the status.
> For example, there is a bug in 4.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2583, it says can't backup snapshot from primary storage into S3 if the hypervisor is xenserver. 
> It's fired for 4.2, but actually, 4.1 will have the same issue.
> Will we claim, to support S3 in 4.1, while the major functionality of S3 is broken?
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of Swift
>> support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but I
>> completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed.
>> 
>> This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion.
>> A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no
>> usage.  It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without
>> community discussion and consensus.
>> 
>> In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I am
>> concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles.
>> Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To me, it
>> is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was
>> familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to fill in
>> the gaps."  To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be
>> acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code
>> changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> /Sudha
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
>>> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>>>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>>>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that,
>>>>>> we only
>>>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community,
>>>>>> do
>>>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
>>>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
>> integration?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
>>>>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
>>>>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --David
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
>>>> store changes?
>>> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
>> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>>> 
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

And I want to point out, that, it's easy to say this feature and that feature are supported in certain release, but without fully tested for each release, only God will know the status.
For example, there is a bug in 4.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2583, it says can't backup snapshot from primary storage into S3 if the hypervisor is xenserver. 
It's fired for 4.2, but actually, 4.1 will have the same issue.
Will we claim, to support S3 in 4.1, while the major functionality of S3 is broken?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> All,
> 
> I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of Swift
> support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but I
> completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed.
> 
> This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion.
> A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no
> usage.  It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without
> community discussion and consensus.
> 
> In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I am
> concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles.
> Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To me, it
> is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was
> familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to fill in
> the gaps."  To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be
> acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code
> changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that,
> >>>> we only
> >> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community,
> >>>> do
> >> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
> integration?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> >>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> >>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>
> >> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> >> store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> All,
> 
> I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of Swift
> support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but I
> completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed.
> 
> This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion.
> A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no
> usage.  It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without

They are not directly translated to no usage, but as all the code(swift/s3/nfs) are glued together in pre-object-store-branch-merge, it's likely one guy fixes a bug for nfs, will break swift/s3.
If the feature is nobody verified for each release(since 4.0), how many confidence do we have, that the feature is still working?

> community discussion and consensus.
> 
> In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I am

I am asking the question, because, nobody knows the status of swift since 4.0, should I need to make sure the features that not been tested for a long time to work?
If we want to support this feature, then we need to gather the requirement, for example, the Swift, also coming with S3 compatible API(http://www.buildcloudstorage.com/2011/11/s3-apis-on-openstack-swift.html),
Is it OK to just support S3 api, instead of using swift's native API?

> concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles.
> Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To me, it
> is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was
> familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to fill in
> the gaps."  To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be
> acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing.


> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code
> changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that,
> >>>> we only
> >> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community,
> >>>> do
> >> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
> integration?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> >>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> >>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>
> >> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> >> store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.

All,

I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of Swift support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but I completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed.  

This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion.  A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no usage.  It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without community discussion and consensus.  

In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I am concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles.  Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To me, it is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to fill in the gaps."  To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing.    

Thanks,
-John

On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> 
> Thanks
> /Sudha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
>> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
>> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, 
>>>> we only
>> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, 
>>>> do
>> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
>> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Whats the bug ID for this?
>>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It 
>>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on 
>>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>>> 
>>> --David
>>> 
>> 
>> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
>> store changes?
> It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
>

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.

Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.

Thanks
/Sudha

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
To: 'Chip Childers'; <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, 
> >> we only
> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, 
> >> do
> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will 
> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
> >
> >
> > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It 
> > engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on 
> > previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >
> > --David
> >
> 
> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object 
> store changes?
It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> To: <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only
> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do
> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some
> efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
> >
> >
> > Whats the bug ID for this?
> > Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> > engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> > previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >
> > --David
> >
> 
> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object store
> changes?
It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
>
>
> Whats the bug ID for this?
> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
>
> --David
>

Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
store changes?

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:22:07AM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
> 
> 
> Whats the bug ID for this?

I have opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3400 as a
blocker for 4.2.

> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> 
> --David
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:22:07AM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> > Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?
> 
> 
> Whats the bug ID for this?

I have opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3400 as a
blocker for 4.2.

> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> 
> --David
>

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

Whats the bug ID for this?
Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.

--David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, we only have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the integration?

Whats the bug ID for this?
Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.

--David

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, do we want to support Swift?

Yes

> If so, which version of Swift?

At least the version that we were supporting before the OS merge.

-chip