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

[Gary Mazz]

Didn't we talk about this at one time ?? It seems like a lifetime ago :)
 The one on the wiki was too visually "busy". The simplified one was 
intended to look more...  simple.

-gary


Edmonds, AndrewX wrote:
> FYI: we did also have this on our wiki, with the very same states as in Gary's diagram. 
>
> http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/StateModel
>
> KIS, LCD,
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Gary Mazz
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:04 PM
> To: Alexis Richardson
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Simplified OCCI VM lifecycle diagram]
>
> 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
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>