Open Stack

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:24:04AM -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, Andrew Laski <andrew.laski at rackspace.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 06/13/2014 10:53 AM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > >On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>On 06/13/2014 09:22 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
> > >>>I guess the question I’m really asking here is:  “Since we know resize
> > >>>down won’t work in all cases, and the failure if it does occur will be
> > >>>hard for the user to detect, should we just block it at the API layer
> > >>>and be consistent across all Hypervisors ?”
> > >>+1 for consistency.
> > >+1 for having written the code for the xenapi driver and not wishing
> > >that on anyone else :)
> > 
> > I'm also +1.  But this is a feature that's offered by some cloud
> > providers so removing it may cause some pain even with a deprecation
> > cycle.
> 
> Yeah, that's the hard part about this.
> 
> On the flip side, supporting it going forward will be a pain too.
> 
> The xenapi implementation only works on ext[234] filesystems. That rules
> out *BSD, Windows and Linux distributions that don't use ext[234]. RHEL7
> defaults to XFS for instance.

Presumably it'll have a hard time if the guest uses LVM for its image
or does luks encryption, or anything else that's more complex than just
a plain FS in a partition.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|