[Ovirt-devel] Questions on the Server Suite UI

[Bryan Kearney]

Hugh O. Brock wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> Hugh O. Brock wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:38:45AM -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>>> Below are a couple of functional question on the UI having installed 
>>>> it,  and reviewed version .6 of the docs. I realize the answer may be 
>>>> "in an  upcoming release", but I wanted to at least throw it out:
>>> Hi Bryan, thanks for checking out oVirt!
>>>
>>>> 1) Can I set quotas at the VM pool level, or are they only inherited  
>>>> from the hardware pool?
>>> Yes -- in fact the VM pool is the main carrier for quotas. The
>>> hardware pool quota settings merely define a default for VM pools
>>> created within a hardware pool. I recall a bug one or two releases ago
>>> however where the "edit quota" link in the details pane for a VM pool
>>> was either obscured or missing -- I think I even filed the BZ for
>>> it. I thought it was fixed in the current release but maybe not. I'll
>>> check on it.
>>>
>>>> 2) Are there plans to support moving vm pools between hardware pools?
>>> I believe we had decided we didn't want to do this, simply because the
>>> act of moving a VM pool to another hardware pool would imply
>>> mass-migrating all the VMs there to a hardware pool where they would
>>> not necessarily be able to run (the hardware pool defines hardware
>>> compatibility -- e.g. Intel vs. AMD -- and migration boundaries). Can
>>> you think of a use case we should to support here?
>> The use case I was thinking was one of quota policy. I could see using  
>> high level hardware pools as a means to group VM pools with the same  
>> quota and SLA. If a groups is granted a higher or lower Quota/SLA then I  
>> would want to move the vm pool to a new hardware pool.
>>
> 
> Interesting. The more I think about it the more I think we really need
> to nest VM pools to handle it. Since the VM pool carries things like
> quota and (eventually) SLA, what you really probably want is to allow
> VM pools to have VM pool children that are subject to the SLA of the
> parent... and you want to be able to move a child VM pool from one
> parent to another. This keeps the hardware pool firmly in the
> physical-topology-related domain of network and migration boundaries,
> while tying VM pools more firmly to SLA and chargeback and so on.
> 
> Scott, what do you think of this?


Either that, or you take in a mix-in approach where quota and SLA is 
provides as an attribute.. not as inheritance from its location in the tree.

-- bk