On 10-Oct-2013, at 9:27 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any reservations about changing the volume identifier in > KVM's volume creation command to be the uuid of the volume? Currently for > new volumes it generates a random uuid and passes that back to be stored in > the database. From an admin perspective, the only way to link a volume on > the back end (be it a qcow2 image or an LVM volume) to one as reported is > to look in the DB and see what this 'secondary uuid' is and look for THAT > as the filename/image name on the back end. It would simply remove a layer > of translating uuid to another hidden uuid to get file/volume name. > The 'uuid' field in volumes table was added later on. Since previously there was no uuid for a volume it was done that way. +1 for the change. > It shouldn't disrupt or change current volumes, just new ones. > > The only caveat I can think of so far is if we wanted multiple files/images > on the back end to map to one volume, but I don't see that as a blocker > since it would probably have lots of other implications to the tracking > volume objects.
