Comment 2 for bug 1439892

I'm not a fan of bind mounting for glance here, for the following reason.

The problem we're solving for here is "glance container runs out of space" - the proposed solution is essentially to push that up to the host, based on a premise that the host "won't run out of space ever". Since we're dealing with arbitrary sizes of disks here that are always going to be finite, it doesn't make sense to me as a solution over a planned solution of setting the disk size for the glance container to be larger (its configurable).

So that is to say, moving the issue from the container to the host creates larger potential issues, but still the same potential issue, and if it doesn't exist on the host, at what point is the disk large enough for it to not exist? We should set the container size to that and it won't exist for the container either.

If the host fills up the consequences are far worse than if a glance container fails - that is one of the benefits of containers.