----- Original Message -----
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 9:29:55 AM
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On 07/03/2012 06:44 PM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> Hey,
> > > >>
> > > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828089
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like add a search option for searching disks of a VM
> > > >> or
> > > >> Template,
> > > >>
> > > >> Please suggest a name for the search option,
> > > >> In the 'view' level we call it 'entity_type', but maybe 'type'
> > > >> is
> > > >> nicer ? (or not too specific?)
> > > > Belongs-To/Attached-To/
> > > Part of?
> > 
> > So what do you do with a disk that is both in a template and
> > attached
> > read-only to a VM? (no, we do not currently support it, but we will
> > as there is no reason not to).
> > When a container references the disk, that is not a property of the
> > disk so there should be no column indicating that when looking at
> > the disk.
> > The disk is either read only or read write, that's it.  The column
> > should state that.
> 
> I think that "read-only/read-write" is not related to "attached to
> Template(s)/attached to VM(s)/attached to both (not supported yet)".

Indeed, it is related to the actual requirement afaiu.

> Moreover, wouldn't we want "read-only/read-write" to be per
> VM/Template, and not a property of the Disk itself (i.e. a disk can
> be writable in VM1 and read-only in VM2/Template1)? As opposed to
> the "attached to Templates/attached to VMs" information, which is
> clearly a property of the Disk (well, not a "real" property, as Ayal
> has also mentioned - it is calculated information, based on the

You can mount a r/w disk as read-only in a VM, so how to mount it is indeed a 
vm-disk relationship.  However, a disk can be immutable (iso, read-only 
snapshot as we use for templates, etc).
I've seen 2 RFEs here:
1. Be able to differentiate between disks (currently when you create a template 
from a VM then the disks would have the same alias and user has to stand on the 
disk itself to differentiate.
As a result, what was requested is this column, however, if we create 2 
templates from the same VM (different times so different content) the disks 
would end up still having the same alias, so this column would be useless for 
that purpose.  What we need to do is:
1. make sure that by default we give different aliases to disks when creating a 
template
2. allow user to change the aliases when creating
3. allow user to change the aliases on existing disks (even when part of a 
template)

Second type of request I've seen is about the types of operations that can be 
performed on the disks.
The differences I know of are:

1. VM disks can only be moved between SDs -
This has to do with the disk being r/w.  You cannot have 2 copies of the same 
disk (you can clone it, but then you'd have 2 different disks with different 
UUIDs).
2. Template disks can only be copied between domains -
This is actually not exactly true, as it can be copied, and also deleted from a 
domain (as long as one copy remains somewhere), just no 'move' operation.  But 
again, the reason we can have multiple copies of the same disk (and one disk 
entity in engine referencing them all) is because it is immutable (i.e. read 
only).

3. Currently "template" disks cannot be deleted - This is the tricky one.
"Template" disks are similar to "Shared disks" in the sense that there are 
multiple VMs using them.  However, depending on the implementation, sometimes 
there is no problem in deleting the object (when using storage array cloning) 
and sometimes there is (with current images implementation).
With the new image implementation in vdsm (no code committed yet) you should 
always be able to 'delete' the disk and underlying it would perform the correct 
operation (in case of file system - just delete it because we have hard links 
to it in each VM, in case of storage offloading - actually delete it and in 
case of block domains simply remove the image tag).
So in fact, I see no reason why the user should not be able to delete the disk.

As you can see, in the scenarios above there isn't a single case where 
'attached-to-object(s)-of-type template/VM' is relevant.
Are there additional use cases/something else which I'm missing?

> entities to which the disk is attached to; still, it is interesting
> information that "deserves" a column in the Disks main-grid IMO.

Why?

> ["read-only/read-write" is interesting information as well, and
> should also be displayed - don't know if in the main grid or in the
> VMs/Templates sub-tabs - probably worth a separate discussion]
> 

On top of all this, our current approach to templates is quite limited.
Our templates are comprised of 3 elements:
1. immutable disks
2. hardware configuration
3. migration domain + network config (which hosts can run it, what specific 
networks to attach to, etc).

There is no reason for a user not to be able to mix and match.
e.g.
Provision from a disk with Fedora 16 + LibreOffice + whatever
Hardware profile Medium (2 cores, 4GB memory. ...)
Host Cluster - whatever (different than the one the VM used to create the 
template is in with different networks)

In this view, for convenience, user could be able to create predefined profiles 
containing everything, but doesn't have to.  Assuming we want to go down this 
path (open for discussion), then the column we're discussing would be totally 
irrelevant and wrong.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Asaf
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Engine-devel mailing list
> > > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Engine-devel mailing list
> > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org
> > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Engine-devel mailing list
> > Engine-devel@ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

Reply via email to