On 01/22/2012 09:26 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: > On 20/01/12 17:21, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 01/20/2012 12:01 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>> On 20/01/12 09:35, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> Top Posting: >>>>> >>>>> From user POV I think that option 2 is the only one that make sense. >>>>> We try to do as much as we can, >>>>> and on each "problematic" case, we make him aware and let him decide. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yep, +1. >>>> >>> >>> Trying to get to a conclusion here, >>> 3 different people said on this thread that they think that from the >>> user perspective leaving the shared devices plugged is what they think >>> is the best behavior to the user. (Omer, Kolesnik, Yair) >>> >>> On the other hand we have 2 people who think that protecting the user is >>> more important than leaving the VM configuration as it was in the >>> original VM (Miki, Ayal). >>> >>> Ayal/Miki can you please specify what are we protecting the user from? >>> >>> >>> I think that because we are not snapshotting the shared disk and the >>> direct LUN they should not be part of the VM configuration (in the >>> snapshot) at all. we can not promise the user that the disk will be >>> there and if it is there we can not guarantee it is in the same state as >>> it was when we took the snapshot. >>> >>> >>> Another issue, >>> >>> I can not see a reason to limit this feature to creating a VM from >>> snapshot and not a template? Almost no extra work is needed for >>> supporting templates as well. >> >> I assume you meant, creating a VM from another VM (if it is down)? >> It should be supported. > > Actually I meant creating a Template from Snapshot. Livnat - I think that in case of creating a template from snapshot we should should have new API/Command, that will probably have lots in common with Create VM from snapshot.
> > What you suggested is creating a VM from VM. > Although I see how the two are connected, I think they should be modeled > as two different API calls. > There is a difference in the flow, behavior, locks and parameters > between the two. > > Behavior: > - Original VM has to be down for creating a VM from VM, not the case for > creating a VM from snapshot. > > parameters: > - Creating VM from snapshot should support getting a snapshot-ID, > Creating VM from VM get a VM id > > Locks: > - When creating a VM from VM, we need to lock the original VM as a > whole, we can not edit the VM, take snapshot or any other VM level > action while such operation is active. > While for creating the VM from snapshot we can take more fine-grained > locks (only image related locks). > > Implementation: > Well it is simply another implementation. +1 on Livnat's explanation - I do see a (design/implementation wise) an option for some code reuse, but IMHO - this should be a new command with new API modelling > > > Livnat > > _______________________________________________ > 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
