This is an initial stab at the feature. Agree there is scope for improvement and in course of time it will mature. I guess that’s the whole point of bringing it up for discussion in the community.
-Koushik -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Patton [mailto:mpat...@inforelay.com] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:17 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Local storage support for data volumes Unfortunately this caught my eye. " n disabled existing local storages are not removed but any new local storage is not added." This qualifies as interference. Cloud software must always reflect reality. This whole distinction between root or data being allowed as local was none of CS' business in the first place. Of course CS should throw an exception if you try to live migrate a local storage based instance. it can even refuse to do a cold migrate until such time as the needed code is written. But it is uncalled for CS to disallow otherwise legal operations or to unilaterally hide key elements because some programmer without sufficient real world experience thinks the world should fit their preconceived notions. Furthermore all three hypervisor flavors support movement of local VMs, not just Xen. First rule of UI design, do not lie to the user by hiding things. First rule of software development, programmers are generally horrible at engineering.
