It is reasonable flow that you inherit the configuration from the template, but you can change most of the settings during the creation of the VM, I just don't understand why not to be able to change the disk size and name. Why disk size? You can say the same thing with any other settings, so just make a template for any different setting you need for different VMs based on that same OS. This flow of changing the disk size is supported in any other platforms take a few, OpenStack, VMWare, Xen and any other Cloud providers. I don't see a reason why to do this in two API calls, one for VM creation and then another one for just expanding the disk size. I do understand if you create a VM based on a thin template which is just a link that there's no other way. Another "issue" is that it creates the new of the new disk for the VM based on the template name instead of "vmname_Disk1" etc... I have a customer with many different disk sizes, varying from 50GB up to 200GB, If I go and create a template for an OS based on that, I will probably have 10 templates, it's not scalable if you need to just modify something in the template as well. So the only option right now is to use OpenStack Glance for saving images or create a new feature in Foreman/Satelite for that. On 16/06/2020, 20:53, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:32 PM Erez Zarum <erezz(a)nanosek.com&gt; wrote: This looks like reasonable flow. You create the vm from a template, so you inherit the disk size from the template. Then you modify the disk to the required size. Why is this problematic? If you always need to resize the template, why not create another templated with the right size based on this template? Nir