> +Proposed changes > +================ > + > +Definitions > +----------- > + > +* All disks have exactly one *disk type*, which determines where and how the > + disk can be stored. If the disk is transfered, the disk type remains > + unchanged.
This is a bit misleading, as we usually use the term "disk type" to referr to the way the disk is built up, i.e., things like "drbd", "plain", and "file". However, already now we can specify which volume group a disk for an instance is to be taken from---and that is supposed to remain unchanged over instance moves. A typical use case for this already existing feature is to have two volume groups formed of different physical disks, e.g., solid-state disk and hard drives. So, is this notion supposed to be "disk type" in the sense we use it for disk templates (then the assumptions that all providers of that disk type are equal does not hold, already now) or is it supposed to be an abstract name space supposed to take also into account how storage for that type is provided (then I'd prefere a name not easily confusable with the notion of disk type we already have)? -- Klaus Aehlig Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstr. 12, 80331 Muenchen Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
