[Engine-devel] VM disks

[Daniel Erez]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kublin" <mkublin at redhat.com>
> To: engine-devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:59:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] VM disks
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo at redhat.com>
> > To: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer at redhat.com>
> > Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:48:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] VM disks
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer at redhat.com>
> > > To: engine-devel at 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
> > 

+1
I think that any disk (new/attached) should be activated (plugged) by default.
It seems less confusing to the user and probably a better UX.
Joining the operations would save the client redundant disk status polling.



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