Mailing List Archive: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Would an api option to create an instance without powering on be useful?

On 11/30/18 6:06 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
> I have a request to do $SUBJECT in relation to a V2V workflow. The use
> case here is conversion of a VM/Physical which was previously powered
> off. We want to move its data, but we don't want to be powering on
> stuff which wasn't previously on.
>
> This would involve an api change, and a hopefully very small change in
> drivers to support it. Technically I don't see it as an issue.
>
> However, is it a change we'd be willing to accept? Is there any good
> reason not to do this? Are there any less esoteric workflows which
> might use this feature?

I don't know if it qualifies as less esoteric, but I would use this for
OVB[1]. When we create the "baremetal" VMs there's no need to actually
power them on since the first thing we do with them is shut them down
again. Their initial footprint is pretty small so it's not a huge deal,
but it is another potential use case for this feature.

1:
https://openstack-virtual-baremetal.readthedocs.io/en/latest/introduction.html

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 09:40 -0500, Mohammed Naser wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:07 AM Matthew Booth <mbooth@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I have a request to do $SUBJECT in relation to a V2V workflow. The use
> > case here is conversion of a VM/Physical which was previously powered
> > off. We want to move its data, but we don't want to be powering on
> > stuff which wasn't previously on.
> >
> > This would involve an api change, and a hopefully very small change in
> > drivers to support it. Technically I don't see it as an issue.
> >
> > However, is it a change we'd be willing to accept? Is there any good
> > reason not to do this? Are there any less esoteric workflows which
> > might use this feature?
>
> If you upload an image of said VM which you don't boot, you'd really be
> accomplishing the same thing, no?
>
> Unless you want to be in a state where you want the VM to be there but
> sitting in SHUTOFF state
i think the intent was to have a vm ready to go with ips/ports, volumes
exctra all created so you can quickly start it when needed.
if that is the case another alternitive which might be more public
cloud freidly form a wallet perspecitve would be the ablity
to create a shelved isntace. that way all the ports ectra would be
logically created but it would not be consumeing any compute resources.
>
> > Matt
> > --
> > Matthew Booth
> > Red Hat OpenStack Engineer, Compute DFG
> >
> > Phone: +442070094448 (UK)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators