From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Dillaman Subject: Re: blueprint: consistency groups Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:48:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20160325071933.GA14634@gmail.com> Reply-To: dillaman@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:34131 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752202AbcEPPs7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 11:48:59 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id qo8so23729648pab.1 for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Victor Denisov Cc: Gregory Farnum , Mykola Golub , ceph-devel , Josh Durgin On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Victor Denisov wrote: > Jason, > > Do you have any opinion regarding deleting images that are in a > consistency group? > > Should we delete them as well as the references in the consistency > group they belong to or should we prohibit deleting images that are in > a consistency group? > > V. > Right now, if an image has a snapshot we required you to remove all snapshots before removing the image. Along those lines, if an image is in a consistency group and the consistency group has snapshots, the user wouldn't be able to remove the image since it has snapshots nor should the user be able to remove the snapshots associated with the consistency group. In this case, the user would be forced to dissociate the image from the group before attempting to delete it. Therefore, just to keep the actions consistent, you might as well force the user to dissociate an image from the consistency group even if the image doesn't have snapshots. -- Jason