Open Stack

On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 01:47 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> The question that I don't understand is why does this process have to be
> involve the database to begin with?
> 
> If you want to archive images per-say, on deletion just export it to a
> 'backup tape' (for example) and store enough of the metadata on that
> 'tape' to re-insert it if this is really desired and then delete it from
> the database (or do the export... asynchronously). The same could be said
> with VMs, although likely not all resources, aka networks/.../ make sense
> to do this.
> 
> So instead of deleted = 1, wait for cleaner, just save the resource (if
> possible) + enough metadata on some other system ('backup tape', alternate
> storage location, hdfs, ceph...) and leave it there unless it's really
> needed. Making the database more complex (and all associated code) to
> achieve this same goal seems like a hack that just needs to be addressed
> with a better way to do archiving.
> 
> In a cloudy world of course people would be able to recreate everything
> they need on-demand so who needs undelete anyway ;-)

Good points.

Another way to ask the question: does Amazon provide an undelete
functionality?

Best,
-jay