On 10 April 2014 09:02, Deepak Shetty <dpkshe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, agreed. But then when admin unmanages it, we shud rename it back to the > name > that it originally had before it was managed by cinder. At least thats what > admin can hope > to expect, since he is un-doing the managed_existing stuff, he expects his > file name to be > present as it was before he managed it w/ cinder.
I'd question this assertion. Once you've given a volume to cinder, it is not an external volume any more, it is cinder's. Unmanage of any volume should be consistent, regardless of whether it got into cinder via a volume create or a 'cinder manage' command. It is far worse to have unmanage inconsistent at some point in the distant future than it is for the storage admin to do some extra work in the short term if he is experimenting with managing / unmanaging volumes. As was discussed at the summit, manage / unmanage is *not* designed to be a routine operation. If you're unmanaging volumes regularly then you're not using the interface as intended, and we need to discuss your use-case, not bake weird and inconsistent behaviour into the current interface. So, under what circumstances do you expect that the current behaviour causes a significant problem? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
