[Engine-devel] Question about CloneVMFromSnapshot feature in context of shared disks and direct LUNs-based disks

[Itamar Heim]

On 01/20/2012 12:01 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> On 20/01/12 09:35, Ayal Baron wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Top Posting:
>>>
>>>  From user POV I think that option 2 is the only one that make sense.
>>> We try to do as much as we can,
>>> and on each "problematic" case, we make him aware and let him decide.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, +1.
>>
>
> Trying to get to a conclusion here,
> 3 different people said on this thread that they think that from the
> user perspective leaving the shared devices plugged is what they think
> is the best behavior to the user. (Omer, Kolesnik, Yair)
>
> On the other hand we have 2 people who think that protecting the user is
> more important than leaving the VM configuration as it was in the
> original VM (Miki, Ayal).
>
> Ayal/Miki can you please specify what are we protecting the user from?
>
>
> I think that because we are not snapshotting the shared disk and the
> direct LUN they should not be part of the VM configuration (in the
> snapshot) at all. we can not promise the user that the disk will be
> there and if it is there we can not guarantee it is in the same state as
> it was when we took the snapshot.
>
>
> Another issue,
>
> I can not see a reason to limit this feature to creating a VM from
> snapshot and not a template? Almost no extra work is needed for
> supporting templates as well.

I assume you meant, creating a VM from another VM (if it is down)?
It should be supported.