-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Cole,
On 03/17/10 14:55, Cole Robinson wrote: > > I guess it could be added, but I'd need to understand the use case > better. Are you trying to have a single pool -> VM mapping? Why use > multiple pools instead of a single pool? Do you anticipate your VMs > using storage from more than one pool? > Currently I've got 3 kvm servers: 2 servers with local LVM storage pools, and 1 server with a storage pool (still) on a local file system. Each kvm server has 2 quadcore CPUs, plenty of RAM and disk space. In addition there is a storage pool on an NFS server. The plan is to have domains for nightly builds and tests, to be cloned on demand from a set of template domain and configured via dhcp. The pool for the templates should be shared between all servers; the on-demand clones should be kept on a local pool on one of the kvm servers. Other domains are supposed to provide "static" services, e.g. a Wiki, EMail, or some groupware. They should be created and configured once, but for backup they should be cloned to the NFS pool, too. It is important that these services can be recreated in a short time if one of the kvm server dies. - From my side it is sufficient if each domain is bound to a single storage pool. Regards Harri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuhGZ8ACgkQUTlbRTxpHjf9UwCfU3PMvGTYDLhnBvzh+MjBB8F0 YMgAnA/mlcp+dKyuB89cTiiTLlPifbT9 =8nPT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
