[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

DL> It would eliminate the need for mounts.


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

[*] 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 us ibm com

Attachment: pgpW6oQ8svkGu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]