----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:42:15 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:18:58 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:03:16 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:01:20 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:06:23 PM
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> > To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com>, "Geert > Jansen" > <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, > "Yair > Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" > <abaron@redhat.com> > Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" > <sgrinber@redhat.com>, > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:56:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have > been > updated > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:57:44 PM > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> > > > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Yair > > > Zaslavsky" > > > <yzaslavs@redhat.com> > > > Cc: "Haim Ateya" <hateya@redhat.com>, "Eldan > > > Hildesheim" > > > <info@eldanet.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Eldan > > > Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg" > > > <sgrinber@redhat.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:51:32 AM > > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups > > > have > > > been > > > updated > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:39:49 PM > > > > > > > > I do express that empty mount options SHOULD NOT > > > > send > > > > an > > > > empty > > > > string, rather, omit the whole argument. > > > > > > Yes, this should be handled on the backend side (Yair > > > - > > > please > > > note, > > > maybe it is already implemented like this - don't > > > know): > > > When > > > getting a null-or-empty "mount options" value from > > > the > > > client, > > > the > > > backend needs to make sure to *not* set the relevant > > > parameter > > > in > > > the vdsm verb at all. > > > > > > So leaving the "mount options" text-box empty in the > > > GUI > > > is > > > legal, > > > only needs to be handled in a certain way in the > > > backend. > > > > > > > > In theory for a PosixFS file system a user could create > > multiple > > storage domains of different PosixFS types. Perhaps > > that's > > not > > a > > problem, but worth noting. > > > > Is "Path" the correct term to use for the remote mount? > > I > > can > > imagine > > customers thinking that is local and messing with > > fstab. > > Not sure if there's a better term - filesystem URI ? > > - In the initial mock-up, it was called "Mount Spec". Is > it > better?
I don't like any of the options - but have a preference for Filesystem URI, but I'd like others to weigh in here. My concern with path is that it could mean local or remote, so another option is "Remote Path"
But it *can* be local or remote, so why "Remote Path"? "Path" actually sounds like a good term.
Can it be local - do we want a user mounting a local filesystem?
If it is possible - I don't see why limiting it. It should be similar to defining a "Local on Host" storage domain IIUC. Even if it is potentially harmful for some reason, we don't want to nanny the user, right? He should know what he is doing.
I'm not saying we should stop them, we should make it clear how this is going to be used. When we're setting up a storage domain it's shared storage.
I am probably missing something here, but I assume that "Path" isn't a good term (I apologize for not understanding why). In any case, we need to finalize this term, since it has implications on the rest-api as well.
The important thing is that it's clear what it is - eg. the remote/target not the local mount point. That could be accomplished in the tool tip, etc.
Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others: Please feel free to suggest a new term, or vote for one of the previously-discussed terms ("Remote Path" / "Path" / "Mount Spec" / "File System URI"). If no decision will be made here, the term will remain as-is, i.e. "Path".
> > - Note that the current PosixFS implementation in the > rest-api > utilizes the already-existing "<path>" property within > the > "<storage>" tag within the "<storage_domain>" rest-api > business > entity, therefore I put in the mockup the same term. > Do you think that the rest-api should have a different > term > as > well? > > > > > I presume we are doing just not-null validation for > > path. > > > > Obviously we can't validate the mount options but how > > good > > is > > the > > error reporting back going to be - if the mount options > > are > > wrong, > > or if something fails with the mount will we see "error > > 12345" > > in > > the UI and require the user to go digging in vdsm logs > > or > > are > > we > > going to pull back and display toe complete message. > > Depends on backend/vdsm; Yair/Ayal? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> > > > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal > > > > > Baron" > > > > > <abaron@redhat.com> > > > > > Cc: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, > > > > > "Andrew > > > > > Cathrow" > > > > > <acathrow@redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" > > > > > <mkenneth@redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg" > > > > > <sgrinber@redhat.com>, > > > > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com>, "Eldan > > > > > Hildesheim" <info@eldanet.com>, "Alexey Chub" > > > > > <achub@redhat.com>, > > > > > engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Haim Ateya" > > > > > <hateya@redhat.com> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:28:31 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been > > > > > updated > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:21:42 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 05/10/2012 04:16 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: > > > > > > > Please review the mock-ups on the feature > > > > > > > page: > > > > > > > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > From talking to Haim I understood that path > > > > > > should > > > > > > include > > > > > > ":" > > > > > > > > > > From talking to Ayal, the path can be similar in > > > > > its > > > > > format > > > > > to > > > > > a > > > > > path > > > > > provided when creating an NFS storage domain > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > "server:/dir1/dir2"), *or* to a path provided > > > > > when > > > > > creating > > > > > a > > > > > Local > > > > > storage domain (e.g. "/tmp/dir3"), meaning, > > > > > without > > > > > ":". > > > > > @Ayal - any chance for a clarification here? > > > > > > > > > > > In addition - if we only support V1, why add > > > > > > the > > > > > > combo > > > > > > box? > > > > > > > > > > We are always showing the combo-box, even if we > > > > > have > > > > > only > > > > > one > > > > > option > > > > > in it (so the user will know what is the value > > > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > being > > > > > sent). > > > > > However, we disable it. I updated the mock-up to > > > > > clarify > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Einav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Engine-devel mailing list > > > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Engine-devel mailing list > > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > >