Hi Frank, You could modify the core to make it keep the SIZE sub-attribute in the DISK attributes, but that seems rather complex for what you need. It looks to me that the best approach would be #2, considering you have already your custom transfer scripts. You could just add a new attribute, something like
DISK = [ IMAGE = "imageA" ] DISK_SIZE = [ DISK_ID = 0, SIZE = 1024 ] DISK = [ IMAGE = "imageB" ] DISK_SIZE = [ DISK_ID = 1, SIZE = 2048 ] Or a more readable option DISK = [ IMAGE = "imageA" ] DISK_SIZE = [ IMAGE = "imageA", SIZE = 1024 ] DISK = [ IMAGE = "imageB" ] DISK_SIZE = [ IMAGE = "imageB", SIZE = 2048 ] Regards, Carlos. Carlos Martín, Cloud Technology Engineer/Researcher DSA Research Group: web http://dsa-research.org and blog http://blog.dsa-research.org OpenNebula Open Source Toolkit for Cloud Computing: http://www.OpenNebula.org On 13 September 2010 20:19, Frank Stutz <fr...@franksplace.net> wrote: > In my configuration we have small OS images (~ 1GB) and we allow the users > to use this image and expand the size as needed (via sparse image dd script) > as we don't have shared storage. I have been leveraging the DISK -> SIZE > operation in the 1.4 template code base along with custom transfer manager > script to accomplish this today. This has been working great and I've been > happy with it. My question is with the changes in the 2.0 branch and with > the new images repo, what would be the best way to accomplish this task? > I'm all on board with the new 2.0 image structure, but I'm trying to figure > out how to proceed. > > Thoughts I have so far: > 1. Modify the code to allow the SIZE option to be retained even though > image is specified; right now any extra template parmeters are removed > before saving to DB > 2. Create a special new parameter for sparse imaging growth, and modify tm > custom scripts to accommodate > 3. Throw out the whole tm custom scripts methodology and use hooks, but > still need method to store SIZE of final image in DB. > 4. Use context, but modify it to work before image is booted. > > Right now I'm thinking modifying the code to allow the SIZE option to > propagate to the DB if a IMAGE is desired would be the best way to go, but > wanted some insight if this is best approach? > > > --Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opennebula.org > http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opennebula.org http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
