Vish,
Any more thoughts on how you want to handle this? I agree we need to get in
sync. Just need to think though all the issues.
We have some work lining up to deal with the disks and I was hoping to do it
once instead of diverging then having to redo the work.
pvo
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:20
Vish,
We've talked about this idea in the past and I agree this works for *nix
hosts, but a base install of Windows 2k8R2 with CloudServers is 10.7GB. If
we went with a 10gb base disk solution this obviously won't work. Even if we
went with a 20gb partition it could become a problem as users
2011/9/2 Paul Voccio openst...@substation9.com:
Vish,
We've talked about this idea in the past and I agree this works for *nix
hosts, but a base install of Windows 2k8R2 with CloudServers is 10.7GB.
Yikes.
If we went with a 10gb base disk solution this obviously won't work.
Even if we went
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk wrote:
2011/9/2 Paul Voccio openst...@substation9.com:
Vish,
We've talked about this idea in the past and I agree this works for *nix
hosts, but a base install of Windows 2k8R2 with CloudServers is 10.7GB.
Yikes.
Tell me
On Sep 2, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Paul Voccio wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk wrote:
[...]
The potential for filesystem bugs that could bring the host down gives
me the heebie jeebies. I really, really don't want to mount people's
filesystems.
Can you
My first thought was to do a singled fixed disk and never resize that disk
at all. If you need space, you have to use a volume service.
Ultimately, I don't think this the right approach either, but it solves the
initial use case of needing more storage space.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM,
Yeah, I think that can be rather fair for Unix.
It's just that as you pointed out... Windows is a huge pain. Need to make
sure there's enough space on C: and I think there are still a lot of things
that stupidly rely on being installed on C:
On Sep 2, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Paul Voccio wrote:
Hey guys,
We have a very annoying discrepancy between how local space is used in the xen
driver vs the libvirt driver. I think it is vital that this is rectified
before the Diablo release. We already have a few functional gaps between the
drivers, but the fact that disks are partitioned
2011/8/31 Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com:
Hey guys,
We have a very annoying discrepancy between how local space is used in the
xen driver vs the libvirt driver. I think it is vital that this is
rectified before the Diablo release. We already have a few functional gaps
between the
2011/8/31 Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com:
Can you elaborate on this? Both methods resize the disk, how does the
second method impose more limitations than the first?
In the first case it is perfectly reasonable to have a whole disk image that
is of a decent size for the base image,
Vish,
I think Rackspace ozone/titan has some upcoming work to do for the resizing for
xenserver that might close some of the gap.
I think we need some options (flags) if we are to synchronize libvirt/xen. At
some point, Rackspace also needs an API extension to support a couple different
ways
11 matches
Mail list logo
