Open Stack

Just so everyone is aware. Glance supports 'delayed deletes' where image
data will not actually be deleted at the time of the request. Glance also
has the concept of 'protected images', which allows for setting an image as
protected, preventing it from being deleted until the image is
intentionally set to unprotected. This avoids any actual deletion of prized
images.

Perhaps cinder could emulate that behavior or improve upon it for volumes.

-Alex


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, zhangyu (AI) <zhangyu11 at huawei.com> wrote:

>  Got it. Many thanks!
>
>
>
> Leiqiang, you can take action now J
>
>
>
> *From:* John Griffith [mailto:john.griffith at solidfire.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:38 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete
> protection
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 08:50, zhangyu (AI) <zhangyu11 at huawei.com> wrote:
> > It seems to be an interesting idea. In fact, a China-based public IaaS,
> QingCloud, has provided a similar feature
> > to their virtual servers. Within 2 hours after a virtual server is
> deleted, the server owner can decide whether
> > or not to cancel this deletion and re-cycle that "deleted" virtual
> server.
> >
> > People make mistakes, while such a feature helps in urgent cases. Any
> idea here?
>
> Nova has soft_delete and restore for servers. That sounds similar?
>
> John
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhangleiqiang [mailto:zhangleiqiang at huawei.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:19 PM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete
> protection
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Current openstack provide the delete volume function to the user.
> > But it seems there is no any protection for user's delete operation miss.
> >
> > As we know the data in the volume maybe very important and valuable.
> > So it's better to provide a method to the user to avoid the volume
> delete miss.
> >
> > Such as:
> > We can provide a safe delete for the volume.
> > User can specify how long the volume will be delay deleted(actually
> deleted) when he deletes the volume.
> > Before the volume is actually deleted, user can cancel the delete
> operation and find back the volume.
> > After the specified time, the volume will be actually deleted by the
> system.
> >
> > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices.
> >
> > Best regards to you.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > zhangleiqiang
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> I think a soft-delete for Cinder sounds like a neat idea.  You should file
> a BP that we can target for Juno.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140306/3032fa41/attachment.html>