[ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type?

[Gilad Chaplik]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>, "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>
> Cc: devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 11:28:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type?
> 
> On 06/02/2014 07:45 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:20:25 PM
> >>
> >>
> >> On 31 May 2014, at 15:41, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05/30/2014 01:07 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek at redhat.com>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:17:27 AM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in the instance type feature [1] there are two parts, the "instance
> >>>>> types"
> >>>>> (HW part of the machine) and the "something not sure how to call"
> >>>>> (which
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> basically a disk image with some SW related metadata like OS type). It
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> inspired by the Amazon's "Instance Type" + "AMI".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, the handling of the HW part is merged upstream (some small
> >>>>> parts
> >>>>> missing but mostly there) but the software part is not. I'd like to
> >>>>> start
> >>>>> implementing it and wanted to ask the community how to call it.
> >>>>> Normally
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> would be called "image", but since we already have images in oVirt it
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be confusing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see this options how to call it, please feel free to comment on them,
> >>>>> vote
> >>>>> for some or propose a new name (please keep in mind that the HW part is
> >>>>> called "Instance Type").
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Instance Image
> >>>>> - Software Profile
> >>>>> - OMI (oVirt Machine Image)

+1 

[IGNORE: consider OMG, i'ts funnier ;-)]

> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, any of the three above will do.
> >>>>
> >>>>> - System Image
> >>>>
> >>>> this is too confusing - we already have 'System' in the application
> >>>> (e.g.
> >>>> the
> >>>> 'System' tree, 'System' permissions, etc.) and we already have 'Image'
> >>>> in
> >>>> the
> >>>> application (in multiple places, actually, which is confusing already).
> >>>> Introducing a new 'System Image' type that has nothing to do with the
> >>>> existing
> >>>> 'System' or with the existing 'Image' is very confusing.
> >>>>
> >>>>> - ITI (Instance Type Image)
> >>>>
> >>>> this is confusing as well since it might be considered part / sub-type
> >>>> of
> >>>> the
> >>>> Instance Types business entity, which is wrong.
> >>>
> >>> And why not image?
> >>
> >> +1
> >> I don't think it's too much exposed currently, so I would be also for
> >> using a
> >> plain "image" for the "new" Instance-type related Image.
> >> The "Image" subcategory in Disks tab can be easily renamed to e.g. disk
> >> images
> >
> > we also have the "Images" sub-tab in the Storage main tab (for ISO domains)
> > which needs to be renamed as well IMO in order to avoid confusion.
> > and if we will have "disk image" (for current Virtual Disks images) and
> > "[whatever] image" (for current ISO images), I think that it makes sense
> > to not introduce new plain "image", but another "[whatever] image", e.g.
> > "Instance Image" or OMI, or something completely different such as
> > "Software
> > Profile".
> 
> the ISO images are also, just images.
> if we look at Glance, it stores "Images". these could be iso's or disks.
> the fact we treat them differently is happenstance from trying to
> simplify images for iso's compared to complexity of block and file
> storage domains. something we are trying to break from.
> 
> these are just images, or disk images if we really need to distinguish
> from iso images for some reason.
> 
> 
> >
> >> What would also maybe make sense is to get rid of top level Disks tab,
> >> "hide"
> >> it as Quota, and create a new "Images" main tab. Or move current "Images"
> >> and "Direct LUNs" as a sub-category of Images toplevel tab (but since they
> >> are different entities I'd rather keep it completely separate)
> >>
> >> It may be a bit more confusing for volumes because of gluster's top level
> >> tab
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> michal
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> Tomas
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Instance_Types
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Devel mailing list
> >>>>> Devel at ovirt.org
> >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Devel mailing list
> >>>> Devel at ovirt.org
> >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Devel mailing list
> >>> Devel at ovirt.org
> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel at ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>