Thx for the advice Barak! I was looking for a roadmap to follow, like the "trello" one used for the openshift project https://trello.com/b/nlLwlKoz/atomicopenshift-roadmap but I was not able to find one. I love to hear things like the "SPM was planned to be removed" as it gives me a better understanding of the direction the project has. Any good resource to follow this and other things to come?
Thanks again for the help! Sebastián Greco IT Consultant Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra www.essiprojects.com *www.essiprojects.co.uk <http://www.essiprojects.co.uk>* Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34 977 230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain 120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED *London* UK On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Barak Korren <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 October 2016 at 09:28, Sebastian Greco <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> VMs are not > >> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y > > > > > > Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from > RH > > points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I > can't > > argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of > > companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards > this > > solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are > > missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week). > > Please don't take my statement as being official in any way. Despite > writing from a @redhat.com address, I'm writing my personal thoughts. > > I have stated that I've no data to back what I've said. This is all > just a guess based on what I know of oVirt/RHV development processes. > I'm most certainly not someone who makes decisions about any of theses > things. > > > I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far > from > > my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using > > RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers > (following > > the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like > this > > and dismiss this solution sooner than later. > > Please do not take my statement as indicating of any conscious design > decision. I was just trying to gauge where oVirt/RHV development might > head given that RedHat typically puts its resources where its current > and potential customers tell it do. Case to point: > > 1. Ephemeral local state VMs are supported with the scrathcpad hook because > its been shown to be useful for Build/Test/CI systems. > 2. Singular host with local storage and non-migrating VMs is supported for > cases where one simply wants resource convergence. > > The 3rd case we're discussing here where the same host can run both > local persistent VMs and migrating ones had not been supported so far. > I'm __guessing__ that this is because demand seen so far did not > outweigh > the technical difficulty to achieve this (Just to indicate the difficulty, > the SPM was planned to be removed in 4.0, it did not make it). > > > Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by > > design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this > > thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :) > > This is definitely not the bottom line, I way trying to guess and > explain why this __did_not__ happen __so_far__. I never meant to say > it will not. > > If you are a RHV reseller or integrator, your input is very valuable > for RedHat. While this list is one way to reach some RedHat > developers, you should certainly make an effort to use other channels > available to you to make your input known. > > > -- > Barak Korren > [email protected] > RHEV-CI Team >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
