<div dir="ltr">Thx for the advice Barak!<div><br><div>I was looking for a roadmap to follow, like the "trello" one used for the openshift project <a href="https://trello.com/b/nlLwlKoz/atomicopenshift-roadmap">https://trello.com/b/nlLwlKoz/atomicopenshift-roadmap</a> but I was not able to find one. I love to hear things like the "SPM was planned to be removed" as it gives me a better understanding of the direction the project has. Any good resource to follow this and other things to come?</div></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for the help!</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><font size="3">Sebastián Greco</font><br><font><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)">IT Consultant</span></font><div><font color="#000000" size="1">Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra</font></div><div><font><span style="font-style:italic"><a href="http://www.essiprojects.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.essiprojects.com</a></span></font></div><div><i><a href="http://www.essiprojects.co.uk" target="_blank">www.essiprojects.co.uk</a></i></div><div><br><span style="font-size:x-small">Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:</span><font color="#0000ff" style="font-size:x-small"><a>+34 977 221 182</a></font><span style="font-size:x-small"> · M: </span><a style="font-size:x-small">+34 619 985 161</a><span style="font-size:x-small"> F: </span><a style="font-size:x-small">+34 977 230 170</a><span style="font-size:x-small"> · 43001 </span><span style="font-size:x-small;font-weight:bold">Tarragona</span><span style="font-size:x-small"> Spain</span><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">120 Pall Mall · T:</span><font color="#0000ff" style="font-size:x-small"><a>+44 207 101 0778</a></font><span style="font-size:x-small"> · </span><span style="font-size:x-small">F: </span><a style="font-size:x-small">+44 843 538 3112</a><span style="font-size:x-small"> · SW1Y 5ED <b>London</b></span><span style="font-size:x-small"> UK</span><font size="1"><i><br></i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Barak Korren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bkorren@redhat.com" target="_blank">bkorren@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 31 October 2016 at 09:28, Sebastian Greco <<a href="mailto:sgreco@essiprojects.com">sgreco@essiprojects.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren <<a href="mailto:bkorren@redhat.com">bkorren@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> VMs are not<br>
>> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from RH<br>
> points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I can't<br>
> argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of<br>
> companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards this<br>
> solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are<br>
> missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).<br>
<br>
Please don't take my statement as being official in any way. Despite<br>
writing from a @<a href="http://redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">redhat.com</a> address, I'm writing my personal thoughts.<br>
<br>
I have stated that I've no data to back what I've said. This is all<br>
just a guess based on what I know of oVirt/RHV development processes.<br>
I'm most certainly not someone who makes decisions about any of theses<br>
things.<br>
<br>
> I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far from<br>
> my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using<br>
> RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers (following<br>
> the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like this<br>
> and dismiss this solution sooner than later.<br>
<br>
Please do not take my statement as indicating of any conscious design<br>
decision. I was just trying to gauge where oVirt/RHV development might<br>
head given that RedHat typically puts its resources where its current<br>
and potential customers tell it do. Case to point:<br>
<br>
1. Ephemeral local state VMs are supported with the scrathcpad hook because<br>
its been shown to be useful for Build/Test/CI systems.<br>
2. Singular host with local storage and non-migrating VMs is supported for<br>
cases where one simply wants resource convergence.<br>
<br>
The 3rd case we're discussing here where the same host can run both<br>
local persistent VMs and migrating ones had not been supported so far.<br>
I'm __guessing__ that this is because demand seen so far did not<br>
outweigh<br>
the technical difficulty to achieve this (Just to indicate the difficulty,<br>
the SPM was planned to be removed in 4.0, it did not make it).<br>
<br>
> Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by<br>
> design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this<br>
> thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)<br>
<br>
This is definitely not the bottom line, I way trying to guess and<br>
explain why this __did_not__ happen __so_far__. I never meant to say<br>
it will not.<br>
<br>
If you are a RHV reseller or integrator, your input is very valuable<br>
for RedHat. While this list is one way to reach some RedHat<br>
developers, you should certainly make an effort to use other channels<br>
available to you to make your input known.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Barak Korren<br>
<a href="mailto:bkorren@redhat.com">bkorren@redhat.com</a><br>
RHEV-CI Team<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>