Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC31501301476DDB1@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC31501301476DDB1@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:10:58 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG7Kc_Gfwi=ih1bXdgj7ksOcTU9=zo7gd381XiX7fN=yUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Configurable setting to use linked clones or not on
 VMware
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: Kelven Yang <kelven.yang@citrix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 some details here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Configurable+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?

-chip