Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 881024

Summary:	PRD32 - [RFE] Adding the ability to remove a VM without removing its disks
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Component:	ovirt-engine	Assignee:	Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Leonid Natapov <lnatapov>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.2.0	CC:	abaron, acathrow, chetan, dyasny, hateya, hkojima, iheim, lpeer, Rhev-m-bugs, scohen, yeylon, ykaul
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	3.2.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	storage
Fixed In Version:	SF6	Doc Type:	Release Note
Doc Text:	It is now possible to remove a virtual machine without removing its disk. This replaces the previous behavior where removing a virtual machine forced the removal of its disk, or detaching the disk in a separate action if the disk was to be retained.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	889406 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-06-10 21:24:27 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Storage	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	889406

Description Tal Nisan 2012-11-28 12:59:21 UTC

Description of problem:
There is no easy way to remove a VM from engine without removing it's disks

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. In the VM tab in webadmin select a VM in down status and click on remove
2. Confirm the removal
3.
  
Actual results:
VM is removed along with it's disks

Expected results:
A checkbox should appear in the VM removal confirmation dialog which gives the option to remove the VM yet not remove the disks (Leaving them in engine as floating disks)

Additional info:

Comment 1 Itamar Heim 2012-11-29 11:30:29 UTC

actually, this should also be at config level, then no need to ask for these disks.
for example, say a user launches a VM (instance) from a template (image).
expectation is on deletion of the instance, the disks which came from the image will be deleted, but not other disks ("volumes") associated to the instance.

Comment 2 Ayal Baron 2012-11-29 13:02:29 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)
> actually, this should also be at config level, then no need to ask for these
> disks.
> for example, say a user launches a VM (instance) from a template (image).
> expectation is on deletion of the instance, the disks which came from the
> image will be deleted, but not other disks ("volumes") associated to the
> instance.

Let me see if I follow - you're saying that if we instantiate a template and afterwards add additional disks to the instance then the images derived from the template should be automatically deleted but the added disks should not?
if so, why?  how would you explain this behaviour to the user?

Comment 3 Itamar Heim 2012-12-03 22:59:55 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > actually, this should also be at config level, then no need to ask for these
> > disks.
> > for example, say a user launches a VM (instance) from a template (image).
> > expectation is on deletion of the instance, the disks which came from the
> > image will be deleted, but not other disks ("volumes") associated to the
> > instance.
> 
> Let me see if I follow - you're saying that if we instantiate a template and
> afterwards add additional disks to the instance then the images derived from
> the template should be automatically deleted but the added disks should not?
> if so, why?  how would you explain this behaviour to the user?

afaiu, that's exactly EC2 behavior.
an instance is derived from an image, and volumes can be attached to the instance.
deleting the instance delete the image disks (which i'm guessing are COW), but not the volumes.

Comment 6 Tal Nisan 2012-12-26 00:50:54 UTC

http://gerrit.ovirt.org/10376

Comment 8 Tal Nisan 2013-01-09 11:13:24 UTC

REST API:
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/10682/

Comment 9 Libor Spevak 2013-01-30 10:49:22 UTC

*** Bug 885002 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Leonid Natapov 2013-02-12 15:34:18 UTC

sf6. sanity was done on.

Comment 12 errata-xmlrpc 2013-06-10 21:24:27 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-0888.html