Hi On a second thought, the low level operations for an image are controlled by SAVE (will be copied back to the image repo) and CLONE (will be copied vs linked).
We could deal with this volumes as if they were CDROMs, i.e. READONLY=YES, CLONE=NO, SAVE=NO. The disk images will be linked and mounted by multiple VMs at the same time in a ro mode, so no need to have a virtual SAN underneath . Would that make sense? I'll fill an issue for this if so... Cheers Ruben On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Shankhadeep Shome <shank15...@gmail.com>wrote: > A virtual glusterfs cluster works well for us, at a minimum you need 2 > nodes, We use a couple of open nebula managed vms to host that and point > other vms that need to access shared data to it. > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Valerio Schiavoni < > valerio.schiav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> we have the following use-case for our ON deployment. >> Some of our users need to run lightweight VMs (a very simple >> ubuntu-server with few basic tools). >> These users share some immutable data, which they used to access via a >> shared server. >> The size of such data is pretty big (few hundreds of gigabytes) and their >> content is immutable. >> >> What is the best approach to let their VMs see those big datas ? >> >> We use OpenNebula 4.4. >> >> Thanks, >> Valerio >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- -- Ruben S. Montero, PhD Project co-Lead and Chief Architect OpenNebula - Flexible Enterprise Cloud Made Simple www.OpenNebula.org | rsmont...@opennebula.org | @OpenNebula
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opennebula.org http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
