----- Original Message ----- > On 01/22/2012 09:26 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: > > On 20/01/12 17:21, Itamar Heim wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Actually I meant creating a Template from Snapshot. > Livnat - I think that in case of creating a template from snapshot we > should should have new API/Command, that will probably have lots in > common with Create VM from snapshot.
Why? > > > > > What you suggested is creating a VM from VM. > > Although I see how the two are connected, I think they should be > > modeled > > as two different API calls. > > There is a difference in the flow, behavior, locks and parameters > > between the two. > > > > Behavior: > > - Original VM has to be down for creating a VM from VM, not the > > case for > > creating a VM from snapshot. > > > > parameters: > > - Creating VM from snapshot should support getting a snapshot-ID, > > Creating VM from VM get a VM id > > > > Locks: > > - When creating a VM from VM, we need to lock the original VM as a > > whole, we can not edit the VM, take snapshot or any other VM level > > action while such operation is active. > > While for creating the VM from snapshot we can take more > > fine-grained > > locks (only image related locks). > > > > Implementation: > > Well it is simply another implementation. > +1 on Livnat's explanation - I do see a (design/implementation wise) > an > option for some code reuse, but IMHO - this should be a new command > with > new API modelling > > > > > > Livnat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
