Open Stack

On 3 February 2016 at 16:32, Sam Yaple <samuel at yaple.net> wrote:

>
> Looking into it, however, shows Cinder has no mechanism to delete backups
> in the middle of a chain since you use dependent backups (please correct me
> if I am wrong here). This means after a number of incremental backups you
> _must_ take another full to ensure the chain doesn't get to long. That is a
> problem Ekko is purposing to solve as well. Full backups are costly in
> terms of IO, storage, bandwidth and time. A full backup being required in a
> backup plan is a big problem for backups when we talk about volumes that
> are terabytes large.
>

You're right that this is an issue currently. Cinder actually has enough
info in theory to be able to trivially squash backups to be able to break
the chain, it's only a bit of metadata ref counting and juggling, however
nobody has yet written the code.


> Luckily, digging into it it appears cinder already has all the
> infrastructure in place to handle what we had talked about in a separate
> email thread Duncan. It is very possible Ekko can leverage the existing
> features to do it's backup with no change from Cinder. This isn't the
> initial priority for Ekko though, but it is good information to have. Thank
> you for your comments!
>


Always interested in better ways to solve backup.


-- 
Duncan Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160203/d612ac5c/attachment.html>