On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Hari Kannan <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with David's suggestion of making it 2 way - service (compute) > offering as well as letting the user to select
Just to be clear... I'm against letting users select a feature like this without the operator making the decision to explicitly enable it somehow. As long as that's considered, I'm good with this. > Hari > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nalley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Kelven Yang > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or not on > VMware > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Chip Childers >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Hari Kannan <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wish to propose a better VM sync in CloudStack - I have added >>>>> some details >>>>> here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Configu >>>>> rable+setting+to+use+linked+clones+or+not+on+VMware> along with a >>>>> JIRA ticket 670 >>>>> >>>>> Please review and comment >>>>> >>>>> Hari Kannan >>>> >>>> +1 to the concept. >>>> >>>> Same question as other emails: what release are you thinking for this? >>>> Is someone taking this work on? >>>> >>>> I pulled out your question on the design page, and have some thoughts: >>>> >>>>> Should this be at a template level or account level or VM level?? >>>> >>>> Isn't this something that's more infrastructure centric? i.e.: >>>> linked clone functionality is provided by the hypervisor, and really >>>> is an operator decision (not a user decision). Should the >>>> configuration reflect that, instead of leaking the infra >>>> implementation details to the end user? >>>> >>> >>> I don't know that this is truly infra-specific - why not make it part >>> of the service offering; like local storage. Admin has to configure >>> it, but user gets the option of choosing it. >>> >>> --David >>> >> >> That's reasonable... the concern I have is that I'm not interested in >> the end user selecting this without the operator agreeing to offering >> it. Service offerings are certainly a way to accomplish that goal, >> while also allowing users to decide when to use it. >> >> -chip > > My concern is that I don't want it to be boolean for an entire swath of infra > - there are use cases for both. > > --David >
