Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hari.kannan@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Hari Kannan <hari.kannan@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
CC: Kelven Yang <kelven.yang@citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:16:49 -0800
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or not on
 VMware
Thread-Topic: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or not on
 VMware
Thread-Index: Ac3pLicC1zY5ys3sQ6qpY32VSi8ZQgAAAvSQ
Message-ID: 
 <6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC315013014D31246@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC31501301476DDB1@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CA+96GG7Kc_Gfwi=ih1bXdgj7ksOcTU9=zo7gd381XiX7fN=yUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKprHVb5w2SGLXDnERAxsgu8Nib6spg=Pn5036JvqTACqR==Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+96GG7w_HE6W8eQPubSfWoft9GzB4+Pfo+=owHDYjfPbJadpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKprHVZyeX4fqZizV68pOyZGR4rK9qmbT-7ehtq_swaoMRR=Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC315013014D3123D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CA+96GG6YKzwFghwaNJEB_qZGs2p23ErjL8zOWL8PdSRiWF1AcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+96GG6YKzwFghwaNJEB_qZGs2p23ErjL8zOWL8PdSRiWF1AcA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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 ch=
oose if he wants it or not. This is what I understood of David's suggestion=
, which I seconded - sounds OK?

Hari

-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]=20
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.kannan@citrix.com> wrote:
> I agree with David's suggestion of making it 2 way - service (compute)=20
> offering as well as letting the user to select

Just to be clear...  I'm against letting users select a feature like this w=
ithout the operator making the decision to explicitly enable it somehow.  A=
s long as that's considered, I'm good with this.

> Hari
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@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=20
> not on VMware
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com=
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Chip Childers=20
>>> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kannan@citrix.com> =
wrote:
>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish to propose a better VM sync in CloudStack - I have added=20
>>>>> some details=20
>>>>> 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=20
>>>> really is an operator decision (not a user decision).  Should the=20
>>>> configuration reflect that, instead of leaking the infra=20
>>>> implementation details to the end user?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know that this is truly infra-specific - why not make it=20
>>> part of the service offering; like local storage. Admin has to=20
>>> configure it, but user gets the option of choosing it.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>> That's reasonable...  the concern I have is that I'm not interested=20
>> in the end user selecting this without the operator agreeing to=20
>> offering it.  Service offerings are certainly a way to accomplish=20
>> 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 i=
nfra - there are use cases for both.
>
> --David
>