from ovirt users mailing list: >> On 11/23/2013 10:09 PM, Blaster wrote: >>> I’m trying to move from ESXi to KVM/OVIRT. To attach an ISO to a >>> CDROM under ESXi, I just have to add the NFS share with all my ISOs, >>> then go to the CDROM and attach one of the ISO images and away I go. >>> >>> Under OVIRT, it seems like I have to create yet another datastore, use >>> engine-iso-upload which will create yet another copy of the ISO, >>> before I can attach it to a virtual CD device. >>> >>> Please tell me I missed something in my hours of searching that this >>> isn’t true, that I don’t really have to duplicate each ISO that I >>> already have on a NAS NFS share, to yet another copy that OVIRT can use. >>> >>> There also doesn’t seem to be a nice way to take a disk image and >>> simply click “add to inventory” like I can with ESXi, that I have to >>> use image uploader to create yet another copy of the image and wait >>> for it to copy a 100G file before I can create a VM out of it. >>> >>> Thanks for any suggestions on making this process easier. > On 11/24/2013 05:19 AM, Bob Doolittle wrote: >> Agreed. Many of us already have an existing directory of ISOs which is >> NFS-shared, (I created mine while using VirtualBox for several years) >> and would simply like to use it. >> >> This is an issue which is on the To-Do list, but unfortunately didn't >> make the first cut for 3.3.2 recently. >> >> From what I understand, it should not be terribly difficult to change >> oVirt to utilize it. I believe it was Itamar who previously described a >> way on IRC to use symlinks to refer to existing ISOs. >> >> It seems like most of the competition allows a VM to access any file >> path for an ISO, rather than having to copy it into a storage domain >> first. That would be much preferable in my opinion. > On 24/11/2013 15:33, Itamar Heim wrote: > indeed. > if someone can write a helper script to re-map a regular iso store as a storage domain, i think would help as a srop gap - should be simple.
Reassigning to storage guys
Dup of bug 1051002 or bug 757137 ? (two different use cases, but I believe they can solve the issue mentioned above).
*** Bug 1051002 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #2) > Dup of bug 1051002 or bug 757137 ? (two different use cases, but I believe > they can solve the issue mentioned above). bug #757137 looks more like a direct access / passthrough to local device. bug #1051002 has been already closed as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1291189 ***