On 01/17/2012 07:29 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 17/01/12 11:45, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 17/01/12 10:46, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 01/17/2012 10:32 AM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim"<[email protected]>
To: "Jon Choate"<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:26:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] the future of template cloning
On 01/16/2012 06:16 PM, Jon Choate wrote:
On 01/16/2012 10:58 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 01/16/2012 05:46 PM, Jon Choate wrote:
On 01/16/2012 09:46 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 12/01/12 22:45, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
We are going to be able to store the disks for a template
on
different storage domains due to the multiple storage
domain
feature. Cloning a template will still be possible, but
will
it
provide any value? Thoughts?
I see no relation between the two options.
Scenario 1: I can create a VM with a single disk and create
a
template from it.
I would still want to be able to clone the template in order
to
provision VMs from it on different domains.
Scenario 2: same thing with multiple disks on same domain.
Scenario 3: I have a template with 2 disks on 2 different
domains
(domain A and domain B) and I want to have another copy of
the
template on domain C and domain D
Hi Jon,
After talking to Michael Pasternak it seems that we did not
implemented
copyTemplate in the REST API, it seems to be a gap that we
have.
This gap is playing in our favor, we can remove the
copyTemplate
verb
and introduce copyDisk verb.
The template disks can be copied to another SD.
When creating a VM from template the user can choose per disk
the
destination SD (only SD with the disks are eligible
candidates).
wait, when creating a VM from a template, the user won't get a
choice
will they? Won't the VM disks have to go on the same storage
domain as
the template disks they were created from?
yes, but the template disks can be copied to multiple storage
domains,
so the user can choose for the VM/disk which storage domain to
create
them from (per storage domains that have copies of that disk)
OH! I totally misunderstood. So what you are saying is that a
template
can have N number of copies of the same disk each on a different
storage
domain. I had thought that if you wanted that type of situation
you
would have multiple copies of the template itself too.
yes, one copy of disk per domain though.
Just to be clear, does this mean that the plan is to phase out
the
current clone template command and instead implementing a clone
disk
command so that a template can duplicate its disks individually?
pretty much, yes.
though i'd imagine 'clone template' would still be useful to have
for
the user. not sure if it implies core should expose it as well to
allow
easier usage at UI level for such a task.
we can leave it untouched - means copyTemplate get 1 destination
domain, and copies all disks to it,
but i think it will be unusable (and problematic - what if one of
the
disks already exists on the destination?),
then don't copy it, it is already there
I agree with Omer, there is no reason to support copy template, if
the
user wants to clone all the disks he can use multiple actions, we
don't
need a specific verb for this.
Reason or lack of depends on the common usage.
If we assume that normally all disks of a template would reside on the same
domain then it makes sense to have a verb to copy the template in its entirety
and not burden the user.
The general recommendation should be to use a single storage domain, so I think
there is room for such a verb.
If the UI chooses to expose such operation it will use the
multipleRunAction API which makes it easier to expose to the user
partial success, we could clone disk A and Disk B but Disk C failed
etc.
The multipleRunAction is for user marking multiple objects in GUI and running
an action on all of these objects.
Exactly, choosing the disks to copy to the storage domain.
Here however, the action the user wants is to copy 1 object (the template)
which has sub objects and it should run as a single action.
We are not cloning the template itself we are only cloning the template
disks.
For example, if there is enough space on the target domain for 2/4 disks then
using multipleRunAction would result in 2 disks being copied and 2 failing.
If however it is a single action then the free space test would fail the entire
action and user would be able to choose if he wants to copy just 2.
Note that in this case, actually performing the copy of the 2 disks is
detrimental as it can negatively affect VMs on this domain.
what the user really wants is to specify which disks to copy
and destination per disk, and i don't see a reason to create a
backend
command to do it
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
I would like this discussion to continue but I need some short-term
closure since I only have two days to get something into code. He is
what I am proposing to do:
1) leave clone template as it is. It will try to copy all of the disks
to the same storage domain.
2) Expose a copy disk command so that the user can select a single disk
and create a copy of it on another storage domain.
Is everyone ok with starting there and then refining once we can reach
more of a consensus on what the end product should be?
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
