[occi-wg] Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Simplified OCCI VM lifecycle diagram]

[Gary Mazz]

Alexis,

Both Sam and I have run into instances where not all providers support 
the same states. A few, do not support the "stopped" state, they move 
from 'active' directly to 'destroy'.  This is also true for  storage 
resources. After a VM is stopped (turned off), the storage and all its 
data from the VM instantiation is immediately destroyed. That is, unless 
you purchase persistent storage and copy the information from the 
volatile disk to the persistent one.  We also encounter a similar 
practices with network IP addresses.

Sam did develop a workaround for VM lifecycles, where next valid states  
are included with current state information. However, it still does not 
over ride the provider's practice or exclude a consumer's requirement 
for the unsupported state. 

As an informative model, I think it can help communicate the basic 
concepts of vm lifecycles.

-gary



Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Sam,
>
> On the occi-wg call last week, we agreed to provide a reference model.
>  Whether this needs to be normative or otherwise is TBD.  But, we need
> to show folks a recommended model to implement, in order to increase
> understanding and bring in adopters.  Those adopters whose models
> differ from the example could either implement their own model with
> OCCI's protocol, or get involved in the community to adapt the
> recommended model.
>
> alexis
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>   
>> Copying list...
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Sam Johnston" <samj at samj.net>
>> Date: 21 Feb 2010 22:09
>> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] [Fwd: Simplified OCCI VM lifecycle diagram]
>> To: "Gary Mazz" <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The problem with state diagrams is that if your implementation doesn't fit
>> the mould then you can't use OCCI.
>>
>> For example, you can't stop a resource with rackspacecloud, only destroy it.
>>
>> Something like this is probably useful as an informative rather than
>> normative reference.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>     
>>> On 21 Feb 2010 21:35, "Gary Mazz" <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As per the week...
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>