On 06/18/2014 07:43 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Duncan Thomas
On Jun 18, 2014 9:51 PM, "Jay Pipes" mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> VMs should be cattle, not pets, but yes, a locked instance should be
able to be snapshotted, for sure, IMO.
Shooting all your cattle by accident is bad y'know, a
On Jun 19, 2014, at 13:27, Michael Still wrote:
> It might be a good idea to add a comment to the RPC layer for the
> snapshot call explaining why we haven't implemented a lock check. That
> would reduce future confusion as well.
I think that's a good idea -- will do that.
signature.asc
Descri
It might be a good idea to add a comment to the RPC layer for the
snapshot call explaining why we haven't implemented a lock check. That
would reduce future confusion as well.
Cheers,
Michael
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:06 AM, melanie witt wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 13:34, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
On Jun 17, 2014, at 13:34, Andrew Laski wrote:
> It appears that locking was added in 2010
> (8aea573bd2e44e152fb4ef1627640bab1818dede), at which time commit messages
> weren't nearly as clear and helpful as they now are so there's not much
> insight from that. But the lock checking methods a
Duncan Thomas
On Jun 18, 2014 9:51 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
> VMs should be cattle, not pets, but yes, a locked instance should be able
to be snapshotted, for sure, IMO.
Shooting all your cattle by accident is bad y'know, and you're a cattle
farmer will probably put you out of business... The effo
On 06/18/2014 01:15 PM, Day, Phil wrote:
-Original Message- From: Ahmed RAHAL
[mailto:ara...@iweb.com] Sent: 18 June 2014 01:21 To:
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
[nova] locked instances and snaphot
Hi there,
Le 2014-06-16 15:28, melanie witt a écrit
> -Original Message-
> From: Ahmed RAHAL [mailto:ara...@iweb.com]
> Sent: 18 June 2014 01:21
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] locked instances and snaphot
>
> Hi there,
>
> Le 2014-06-16 15:28, melani
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Ahmed RAHAL wrote:
> Le 2014-06-16 15:28, melanie witt a écrit :
> The more I think about it, the more I get to think that locking is just
> there to avoid mistakes, not voluntary misbehaviour.
I agree. You have a really important instance, so you lock it to avo
Hi there,
Le 2014-06-16 15:28, melanie witt a écrit :
Hi all,
[...]
During the patch review, a reviewer raised a concern about the
purpose of instance locking and whether prevention of snapshot while
an instance is locked is appropriate. From what we understand,
instance lock is meant to pre
On 06/17/2014 03:03 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Jun 16, 2014, at 13:56, Michael Still wrote:
It is certainly my belief that the lock functionality for instances is
about avoiding accidental changes to the instance itself, not the
contents of the instance. I personally think that snapshots aren
On Jun 16, 2014, at 13:56, Michael Still wrote:
> It is certainly my belief that the lock functionality for instances is
> about avoiding accidental changes to the instance itself, not the
> contents of the instance. I personally think that snapshots aren't a
> change to the instance and therefo
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM, melanie witt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently a nova bug [1] was opened where the user describes a scenario where
> an instance that is locked is still able to be snapshotted (create image and
> backup). In the case of Trove, instances are locked "...to ensure integ
Hi all,
Recently a nova bug [1] was opened where the user describes a scenario where an
instance that is locked is still able to be snapshotted (create image and
backup). In the case of Trove, instances are locked "...to ensure integrity and
protect secrets which are needed by the resident Trov
13 matches
Mail list logo
