On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:23:06 +0200
poma wrote:
> On 17.04.2013 19:32, poma wrote:
> > On 17.04.2013 17:33, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Hah!
> Frank, it would be nice of you to use the correct terminology[1]. ;)
> Your so called "virt-images" are not a virtual machines per se.
> It is possible that you
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:32:51 +0200
poma wrote:
> On 17.04.2013 17:33, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:58:20 +0200
> > poma wrote:
> >
> >> Mount points are the mount points, regardless of the disks
> >> layout. :)
>
> […]
>
> > What are you talking about?
>
> What am I talking
On 17.04.2013 19:32, poma wrote:
> On 17.04.2013 17:33, Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:58:20 +0200
>> poma wrote:
>>
>>> Mount points are the mount points, regardless of the disks
>>> layout. :)
>
> […]
>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> What am I talking about!? :)
>
>> If th
On 17.04.2013 17:33, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:58:20 +0200
> poma wrote:
>
>> Mount points are the mount points, regardless of the disks
>> layout. :)
[…]
> What are you talking about?
What am I talking about!? :)
> If the stated disk in Virt-Manager is sdf for eg Fedora-1
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:58:20 +0200
poma wrote:
> Mount points are the mount points, regardless of the disks
> layout. :)
>
> poma
What are you talking about?
If the stated disk in Virt-Manager is sdf for eg Fedora-17
and the host then changes it to sdg, it's still sdf in virt-Manager.
Thus it
On 17.04.2013 10:41, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I have 5 physical disks, on which the virt-images are stored.
Probably you have 5 physical disks *partitions* *mounted* on a storage
*pool* *directory* defaulting to "/var/lib/libvirt/images", right?
> What I have found is for whatever reason, I need to
