2 Feb
2012
2 Feb
'12
9:29 a.m.
On 02/02/2012 12:25 PM, Daniel Erez wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Itamar Heim"<iheim@redhat.com> >> To: "Daniel Erez"<derez@redhat.com> >> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org >> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:08:56 AM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Floating Disk feature description >> >> On 02/01/2012 07:04 PM, Daniel Erez wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Floating Disk feature description Wiki page: >>> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/DetailedFloatingDisk >> some questions/notes: >> 1. why do you need a floating/not floating state? isn't a disk >> floating >> if it was detached from all VMs? >> or is that only a helper property to optimize lookups? >> > Yes, the floating state is an indication whether the disk is attached to any VM. > It's not a persistent property on the disk, but rather a DB view calculated value. > >> 2. you mention fields of disks (Floating/Shared/Managed) >> >> 2.1 do we have a definition of "Managed" disk somewhere? >> I assume unmanaged would be a direct LUN, but i think we need a >> better >> terminology here. > Indeed, we're looking for a better teminology. Suggestions are welcomed... > >> 2.2 same goes for "floating" actually... do we really want to tell >> the >> user the disk is "floating"? >> I guess suggestion welcome for a better name. > "unattached" has been mentioned once as an alternative. Google says the world prefers 'detached': ~196M entries vs. ~5.7M entries for 'unattached'. Y. > >> 2.3 finally, for shared, maybe more interesting is number of VMs the >> disk is connected to, rather than just a boolean (though i assume >> this >> increases complexity for calculation, or redundancy of data, and not >> a >> big issue) > Actually, as part of the "Shared raw disk" feature, we do want to display the number of VMs > (and probably a list too) the disk is connected to - in the 'Disks' sub-tab (under VMs main tab). > Hence, it might be rather simple to show that number also in the Disks main tab > (the list of VMs will be displayed under VMs sub-tab). > >> 3. List of Storage Domains in which the selected Disk resides. >> this is only relevant for template disks? > Yes, it's only for cloned templates. > >> maybe consider splitting the main grid if looking at tempalte disks >> or >> vm disks, and show for vm disks the storage domain in main grid? >> maybe start with vm disks only and not consider template disks so >> much? > Miki? > >> 4. "Templates (visible for disks that reside in templates) List of >> Templates to which the selected Disk is attached. " >> >> same comment as above of maybe consider only vm disks for now. >> and also a question - how can a template disk belong to more than a >> single template? > Yes, for now, a template disk cannot belong to more than a single template. > However, won't we like to have a shared disk for a template in the future? > >> which again hints for a template disk you would want another view, >> with >> the template name in the main grid >> >> 5. Tree: 'Resources' vs. 'free disks' >> while i understand why separating them - naming is very confusing. >> maybe a single node in tree and a way to filter the search from the >> right side grid in some manner for known lookups (relevant to other >> main >> tabs as well?) > For now, we've agreed that sorting abilities in columns is needed for easing the orientation. > >> 6. permissions not available for disks? >> at all? >> what do you mean power user would be able to attach them by their >> type? >> does it mean they can associate any shared disk in the system? I hope >> i'm misunderstanding, as doesn't make sense to me. >> >> or is this caveat specific to the user portal and not the admin? >> not allowing creating a floating disk from user portal is not a >> problem >> in my view for this phase. >> >> I assume anyone can add a disk on a storage domain they have quota >> to. >> who can edit a disk? remove a disk? attach disk to VM (which gives >> them >> ability to edit the disk) >> (attach disk to VM obviously requires permission on both disk and VM) > Since we won't support permissions on disks entities (at first stage), > as a compromise for the power user portal, we've agreed to simply hide > floating non shared disks from the user. > >> 7. related features >> - data ware house may be affected by disks being unattached, or >> shared >> between multiple disks. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel