[Libvir] PATCH: 0/16: Storage management APIs

Dan Smith danms at us.ibm.com
Tue Feb 12 22:13:59 UTC 2008


DL> It would eliminate the need for mounts.

Why?

DL> Does it make more sense to integrate into the storage API design
DL> or leave the separate container specific mounts?

From the perspective of a CIM provider, being able to correlate the
storage used by any set of domains (be them virtual machines or a
containers) to each other is important.

Even if you can't provision* an overlay directory with libvirt (in the
way that this API lets you provision an LV), being able to model the
existence of one is important.

I don't think this will change the XML of a container, but it will
give us a way to associate the path provided for a mount to a storage
pool.

[*] provisioning in the containers case would be a recursive directory
    copy of a template overlay directory, which is what Dan was saying
    he didn't want to do

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms at us.ibm.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20080212/692a3e17/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the libvir-list mailing list