Re: [Engine-devel] Low Level design for HotPlug/HotUnplug feature
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
To: "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com>
Cc: dlaor(a)redhat.com, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:35:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Low Level design for HotPlug/HotUnplug feature
[SNIP]
> > >>>> - Any CanDoAction to allow/disallow plug/unplug from
> > >>>> specific
> > >>>> systems?
> > > The operation will be allowed only for RHEL 5/6, Windows Server
> > > 2003 and Windows server 2008 operating systems, added to design
IMO this behaviour is wrong. We should not prevent user from running
hot plug on an unsupported system, just warn that this operation
might fail and can crash the VM (downstream versions can warn that
it is unsupported).
E.g. if user installed a service pack on a windows not listed that
adds support for hotplug, why should we prevent running the action?
or worse, a new windows version is released and users of the existing
system would not be able to hot plug.
Alternatively, the list of OSs on which this works can be
customizable by user in which case a knowledgeable user would modify
at her own risk.
IIRC there is an 'other' os type when creating a VM, why block on
this? again, either warn or allow customizing behaviour.
I second. I think that we
are being "over protective" on the admin.
I tend to agree that warning should be a better behavior (if the VM is not damaged,
just BSOD, than this is up to the admin to handle it)
> > >>>> - I suspect we'd be happier with some agent cooperation
> > >>>> before
> > >>>> unplugging - is this done by QEMU? Not detailed anywhere.
This is not currently planned, but should definitely be on the road
map (need to add to the feature page and state that it will not be
covered in 3.1)
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel