On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 08:42 +0100, Jerome Martin wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Andy Grover <agrover@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Dax Kelson <dkelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I don't think that is a good idea. It violates the principal of > >> least surprise [1]. > > > > A good point. However, I think it may be more apt to compare against > > existing storage appliances, which persist configuration. The nightmare > > use case for me is: > > > > * admin sets up huge cluster of vms, all mounted off an LIO box, admin > > never saves config > > * everything runs fine until 6 months later, when the LIO box is > > rebooted for security updates and the entire LIO configuration is lost, > > and the admin comes hunting for us > > I understand. I think Dax's suggestion of a big fat warning on exit if > the config has not been saved is probably the best option to avoid > this problem. > I would tend to agree with Dax and Jerome on a big warning / option to save unsaved changes on exit being the most sensible as the default. --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
