I filled the bug because I felt that if options are enabled by default
(e.g. creating a storage pool) then they should probably work by default.
My suspicion is that this is in-effect a regression caused by Azure
changing its policies.
But perhaps my concern is a non-issue and the ticket can be closed?
Defintely agree that other areas are higher priorities. We can address it
if we receive any complaints from the field.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, 20:15 John A Meinel <<email address hidden> wrote:
> We already have a mechanism for asking for a different instance type for
> your instances (juju deploy swift-storage --constraints
> "instance-type=XXX"). I don't think the default instance type has to
> support everything you might want to do.
>
I filled the bug because I felt that if options are enabled by default
(e.g. creating a storage pool) then they should probably work by default.
My suspicion is that this is in-effect a regression caused by Azure
changing its policies.
But perhaps my concern is a non-issue and the ticket can be closed?
Defintely agree that other areas are higher priorities. We can address it
if we receive any complaints from the field.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, 20:15 John A Meinel <<email address hidden> wrote:
> We already have a mechanism for asking for a different instance type for type=XXX" ). I don't think the default instance type has to
> your instances (juju deploy swift-storage --constraints
> "instance-
> support everything you might want to do.
>