On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi Chip, > > The admin (Operator) will first have to make this an option of the service > (compute) offering if he want to provide this. Then the end-user gets to > choose if he wants it or not. This is what I understood of David's > suggestion, which I seconded - sounds OK? >
Yup, we're saying the same thing now. Thanks for clarifying your point! > Hari > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 1:08 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Kelven Yang > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or not on > VMware > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I agree with David's suggestion of making it 2 way - service (compute) >> offering as well as letting the user to select > > Just to be clear... I'm against letting users select a feature like this > without the operator making the decision to explicitly enable it somehow. As > long as that's considered, I'm good with this. > >> Hari >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:54 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: Kelven Yang >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or >> not on VMware >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Chip Childers >>>> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish to propose a better VM sync in CloudStack - I have added >>>>>> some details >>>>>> here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Config >>>>>> u >>>>>> rable+setting+to+use+linked+clones+or+not+on+VMware> along with a >>>>>> JIRA ticket 670 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review and comment >>>>>> >>>>>> Hari Kannan >>>>> >>>>> +1 to the concept. >>>>> >>>>> Same question as other emails: what release are you thinking for this? >>>>> Is someone taking this work on? >>>>> >>>>> I pulled out your question on the design page, and have some thoughts: >>>>> >>>>>> Should this be at a template level or account level or VM level?? >>>>> >>>>> Isn't this something that's more infrastructure centric? i.e.: >>>>> linked clone functionality is provided by the hypervisor, and >>>>> really is an operator decision (not a user decision). Should the >>>>> configuration reflect that, instead of leaking the infra >>>>> implementation details to the end user? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know that this is truly infra-specific - why not make it >>>> part of the service offering; like local storage. Admin has to >>>> configure it, but user gets the option of choosing it. >>>> >>>> --David >>>> >>> >>> That's reasonable... the concern I have is that I'm not interested >>> in the end user selecting this without the operator agreeing to >>> offering it. Service offerings are certainly a way to accomplish >>> that goal, while also allowing users to decide when to use it. >>> >>> -chip >> >> My concern is that I don't want it to be boolean for an entire swath of >> infra - there are use cases for both. >> >> --David >> >
