Re: [Engine-devel] VM disks

From: "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt; To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:59:51 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] VM disks ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:48:31 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] VM disks > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:07:01 PM > > Subject: [Engine-devel] VM disks > > > > Hi, > > > > These days we are working on various features around VM disks, in > > the > > different threads it was decided that we'll have the ability to > > attach a > > disk to a VM but it will be added as inactive, then the user can > > activate it for it to be accessible from within the guest. > > > > Flow of adding a new disk would be: > > - creating the disk > > - attaching the disk to the VM > > - activating it These should be in a one step, otherwise the clients (rest and gui) will need to pool us for every disk > > Flow of adding a shared disk (or any other existing disk): > > - attach the disk > > - activate it These is just simple as a hot plug , should be and it is easy implement as one step > > It seems to me a lot like adding a storage domain and I remember > > a > > lot > > of rejections on the storage domain flow (mostly about it being > > too > > cumbersome). > > After discussing the issue with various people we could not find > > a > > good > > reason for having a VM disk in attached but inactive mode. > > > > Of course we can wrap the above steps in one step for specific > > flows Agreed, should be in one step > > (add+attach within a VM context for example) but can anyone think > > on > > a > > good reason to support attached but inactive disk? I don't see a reason also. > > I would suggest that when attaching a disk to a VM it becomes > > part > > of > > the VM (active) like in 'real' machines. > > > +1 on that (regardless of whether the disk is shared or not). > IMO - in the case of shared disk we should make it as clear as > possible to the user/admin that the added disk is shared, but the > flow should be exactly the same. Also agreed >

> > > > Thank you, Livnat > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel