On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, Andrew Laski <andrew.la...@rackspace.com> wrote: > > On 06/13/2014 10:53 AM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>On 06/13/2014 09:22 AM, Day, Phil wrote: > >>>I guess the question I’m really asking here is: “Since we know resize > >>>down won’t work in all cases, and the failure if it does occur will be > >>>hard for the user to detect, should we just block it at the API layer > >>>and be consistent across all Hypervisors ?” > >>+1 for consistency. > >+1 for having written the code for the xenapi driver and not wishing > >that on anyone else :) > > I'm also +1. But this is a feature that's offered by some cloud > providers so removing it may cause some pain even with a deprecation > cycle.
Yeah, that's the hard part about this. On the flip side, supporting it going forward will be a pain too. The xenapi implementation only works on ext[234] filesystems. That rules out *BSD, Windows and Linux distributions that don't use ext[234]. RHEL7 defaults to XFS for instance. In some cases, we couldn't even support resize down (XFS doesn't support it). That is to go along with all of the other problems with resize down as it currently stands. JE _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
