Hi David, Understood, I'll look at removing them then.
So with rhevm, which I thought I had modeled this after, "system" volumes do not vanish when the machine vanishes? Regards, Dies Koper > -----Original Message----- > From: David Lutterkort [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013 9:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: storage_volumes and cimi volumes include system volumes? > > Hi Dies, > > are these truly volumes (i.e., storage that as its own lifecycle, not > connected to that of the machine to which it is attached ?) If so, I > believe they should be included - if they vanish when the machine > vanishes, they are 'disks' not 'volumes' in CIMI lingo. > > David > > On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 09:38 +1100, Koper, Dies wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Should/may storage_volumes include system volumes (i.e. the "boot > > drive")? > > How about for the cimi volumes collection? > > > > For fgcp I am currently including system volumes in storage_volumes > > (which with the current mapping includes them in cimi volumes). > > I set the :kind attribute (aligned with rhevm) to 'system' for these > > volumes. > > They're attached to instances and can't be deattached. > > > > The reason I wanted them in storage_volumes at the time was because > it > > allowed me to map system volume snapshot (i.e. instance backup & > > restore). > > > > But when I was looking at the system_volumes collection and saw all > the > > system volumes in there I started wondering... > > > > Regards, > > Dies Koper > > > > > >
