On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM,  <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:shlomo.swidler@gmail.com">shlomo.swidler@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div id=":1rj" class="ii gt">2. Amazon has distinct nouns for &quot;Volumes&quot; and &quot;Snapshots&quot;. Amazon&#39;s<br>
snapshots are not mountable, you can only &quot;copy&quot;/&quot;clone&quot; (not sure<br>
which OCCI verb is the correct one here) an Amazon EBS snapshot into a<br>
new EBS drive. The OCCI API seems to imply that the result of the verb<br>
&quot;image&quot; on a drive yields another drive. So there may be a need to<br>
introduce either a new noun &quot;drive snapshot&quot; that is not linkable to<br>
any compute noun, or to otherwise differentiate between drives that<br>
are mountable and drives that are not mountable.</div></blockquote></div><br>We plan to expose a basic set of well-defined nouns which implementors are able to use in an interoperable fashion. This will include basic functionality like clone (possibly with parameters like &quot;full&quot; vs &quot;cow&quot;) but things like &quot;format&quot;, &quot;check&quot;, &quot;backup&quot;, etc. may or may not be specified.<br>
<br>Note that a &quot;mount&quot; is currently done by creating an association between a compute and a storage resource (specifying the local identifier - eg &quot;sda&quot;). I can&#39;t think of a sensible way to advertise &quot;mountability&quot; (short of throwing errors when it fails), and having an &quot;attach&quot; verb on storage devices which accepts a compute device as a parameter feels fugly.<br>
<br>Sam<br><br>