Open Stack

> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winston.d at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume delete
> protection
> 
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Zhangleiqiang <zhangleiqiang at huawei.com>
> wrote:
> >> From: Huang Zhiteng [mailto:winston.d at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:29 PM
> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Feature about volume
> >> delete protection
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Zhangleiqiang
> >> <zhangleiqiang at huawei.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Besides the "soft-delete" state for volumes, I think there is need
> >> > for introducing another "fake delete" state for volumes which have
> snapshot.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Current Openstack refuses the delete request for volumes which have
> >> > snapshot. However, we will have no method to limit users to only
> >> > use the specific snapshot other than the original volume ,  because
> >> > the original volume is always visible for the users.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So I think we can permit users to delete volumes which have
> >> > snapshots, and mark the volume as "fake delete" state. When all of
> >> > the snapshots of the volume have already deleted, the original
> >> > volume will be removed automatically.
> >> >
> >> Can you describe the actual use case for this?  I not sure I follow
> >> why operator would like to limit the owner of the volume to only use
> >> specific version of snapshot.  It sounds like you are adding another
> >> layer.  If that's the case, the problem should be solved at upper layer
> instead of Cinder.
> >
> > For example, one tenant's volume quota is five, and has 5 volumes and 1
> snapshot already. If the data in base volume of the snapshot is corrupted, the
> user will need to create a new volume from the snapshot, but this operation
> will be failed because there are already 5 volumes, and the original volume
> cannot be deleted, too.
> >
> Hmm, how likely is it the snapshot is still sane when the base volume is
> corrupted?  

If the snapshot of volume is COW, then the snapshot will be still sane when the base volume is corrupted.

> Even if this case is possible, I don't see the 'fake delete' proposal
> is the right way to solve the problem.  IMO, it simply violates what quota
> system is designed for and complicates quota metrics calculation (there would
> be actual quota which is only visible to admin/operator and an end-user facing
> quota).  Why not contact operator to bump the upper limit of the volume
> quota instead?

I had some misunderstanding on Cinder's snapshot. 
"Fake delete" is common if there is "chained snapshot" or "snapshot tree" mechanism. However in cinder, only volume can make snapshot but snapshot cannot make snapshot again. 

I agree with your bump upper limit method. 

Thanks for your explanation.


> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts? Welcome any advices.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----------
> >> >
> >> > zhangleiqiang
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Best Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: John Griffith [mailto:john.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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards
> >> Huang Zhiteng
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Regards
> Huang Zhiteng
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev