David - I think the cluster is supposed to be homogeneous in terms of hardware and hypervisor version and selectively having local storage for hosts shouldn't be a problem. Allocation also looks at cluster to have a rough idea if the vm can be accommodated or not. Since the local storage is tied at the host level I wanted to find community's viewpoint if we want the flexibility at the lowest level or not.
But then on second thought I myself don't see a lot of merit of having this flexibility at the host level at the moment and it might become little tedious for the admin to disable local storage. Another concern is that if you have the flag at cluster/zone level then how would you enable it on the fly - would you be creating local storages for all the hosts within that cluster/zone ? Has that been addressed ? Thanks, -Nitin -----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:22 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Local storage support for data volumes On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Nitin Mehta <nitin.me...@citrix.com> wrote: > Can we not provide the flexibility while adding a host. So when the admin > adds a host he has the provision of enabling/disabling local storage for that > host. I think that is the lowest level of granularity that we can provide to > the admin ? But hosts within a cluster are supposed to be homogenous. And aren't allocation planning decisions made at the cluster level? What benefit do you see by making this specific to the host as opposed to the cluster? --David
