Bug 1124618

Summary: [RFE] Allow Direct LUN based VMs on uninitialized Data Centers
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce>
Component: RFEsAssignee: Scott Herold <sherold>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: meital avital <mavital>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.6.0CC: amureini, bazulay, ecohen, fsimonce, gklein, iheim, lpeer, lsurette, rbalakri, scohen, sherold, yeylon
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---Flags: sherold: Triaged+
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: virt
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-19 13:36:06 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Federico Simoncelli 2014-07-29 23:09:55 UTC 
Description of problem:
At the moment it is not possible to define and use direct luns when the data center is uninitialized (no storage domains). This means that in order to create VMs with disks on direct luns we are always forced to create at least one dummy master domain.

Allowing the direct luns consumption should be decoupled from the pool/spm as it would be also a step forward in removing the storage pool and the spm.

In addition this would also helpful for integrating with cinder and ceph (as their volumes could be treated as direct luns).
Comment 2 Scott Herold 2015-03-26 21:33:55 UTC 
Federico, I'm doing some BZ cleanup aligned to 3.6.  Does this issue go away with the plans to remove the SPM role?
Comment 3 Allon Mureinik 2015-03-27 04:58:32 UTC 
(In reply to Scott Herold from comment #2)
> Federico, I'm doing some BZ cleanup aligned to 3.6.  Does this issue go away
> with the plans to remove the SPM role?
It's a big step in the right direction, but not sufficient.
At the very least, the engine has a bunch of assumptions about DC statuses and how these related to SDs.
Comment 4 Scott Herold 2015-04-01 14:20:21 UTC 
Removing from 3.6 due to capacity
Comment 5 Yaniv Kaul 2015-11-18 21:03:05 UTC 
Dup of bug 1082540 ?
Comment 6 Allon Mureinik 2015-11-19 13:36:06 UTC 
(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #5)
> Dup of bug 1082540 ?
Yup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1082540 ***