Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

On 31 October 2016 at 09:28, Sebastian Greco <sgreco(a)essiprojects.com&gt; wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> VMs are not >> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y > > > Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from RH > points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I can't > argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of > companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards this > solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are > missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week). Please don't take my statement as being official in any way. Despite writing from a @redhat.com address, I'm writing my personal thoughts. I have stated that I've no data to back what I've said. This is all just a guess based on what I know of oVirt/RHV development processes. I'm most certainly not someone who makes decisions about any of theses things. > I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far from > my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using > RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers (following > the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like this > and dismiss this solution sooner than later. Please do not take my statement as indicating of any conscious design decision. I was just trying to gauge where oVirt/RHV development might head given that RedHat typically puts its resources where its current and potential customers tell it do. Case to point: 1. Ephemeral local state VMs are supported with the scrathcpad hook because its been shown to be useful for Build/Test/CI systems. 2. Singular host with local storage and non-migrating VMs is supported for cases where one simply wants resource convergence. The 3rd case we're discussing here where the same host can run both local persistent VMs and migrating ones had not been supported so far. I'm __guessing__ that this is because demand seen so far did not outweigh the technical difficulty to achieve this (Just to indicate the difficulty, the SPM was planned to be removed in 4.0, it did not make it). > Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by > design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this > thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :) This is definitely not the bottom line, I way trying to guess and explain why this __did_not__ happen __so_far__. I never meant to say it will not. If you are a RHV reseller or integrator, your input is very valuable for RedHat. While this list is one way to reach some RedHat developers, you should certainly make an effort to use other channels available to you to make your input known. -- Barak Korren bkorren(a)redhat.com RHEV-CI Team