Hello Humberto
Sorry for the delay.
On 18.10.2011 10:35, Humberto N. Castejon Martinez wrote:
Thank you very much, Fabian and Carlos, for your help. Things are much more
clear now, I think.
You're welcome.
*Sharing the image repository.
If I understood right, the aim with sharing the image
@redhat.com/msg23674.html
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:30:13 +0200
From: Fabian Wenk fab...@wenks.ch
To: users@lists.opennebula.org
Subject: Re: [one-users] Storage subsystem: which one?
Message-ID: 4e9c3bf5.1060...@wenks.ch
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hello Carlos
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Fabian Wenk fab...@wenks.ch wrote:
I hope this helps and my information are correct, if not, could somebody
from OpenNebula please correct me.
Thank you for your great contributions to the list!
I'd like to add that we tried to summarize the implications
Hello Carlos
On 17.10.2011 11:34, Carlos Martín Sánchez wrote:
Thank you for your great contributions to the list!
You're welcome.
I'd like to add that we tried to summarize the implications of the shared
[1] and non-shared [2] approaches in the documentation, let us know if there
are any
Hi,
I have a setup with a shared-NFS solution for managing VM images. In my
current setup, I share the whole /srv/cloud directory between the front-end
and the worker nodes. One thing I do not like from this solution is that VM
images take space from all workers, even if a worker is not executing
Hello Humberto
On 13.10.2011 11:03, Humberto N. Castejon Martinez wrote:
Reading the Opennebula documentation, I believe there are two things I have
to deal with:
1) The image repository, and whether it is shared or not between the
front-end and the workers
I have some persistent Images
