[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] Persistent Configurations?



On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:33:24PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > Yeah my first reaction was to provide XML based configuration files
> >that libvir would be able to understand, but I really think the 
> >configurations
> >may come from very varied sources possibly databases. That's why I would
> >rather have the library agnostic when it comes to what a configuration
> >may look like.
> > 
> >
> I'll have to think about this one.  My biggest fear is that if there are 
> a bunch of management tools capable of creating domains you'll end up 
> with a bunch of different places storing configs.

  I expect my QA engineers and the developpers to store their configs in
different places on the test cluster :-) you really expect people to
use a unified storage ? I didn't expect it myself.

> > What is needed to start a domain ?
> >
> Required
> 1) name of domain
> 2) initial memory
> 3) maximum memory
> 
> Optional
> 4) uuid
> 5) ssidref
> 6) poweroff, reboot, crash actions
> 7) number of vcpus
> 8) initial vcpu => cpu mapping
> 
> Builder Specific Info
> 
> Linux (misnomer, this is really any PV domain)
> 
> Required
> 1) kernel
> 
> Optional
> 2) ramdisk
> 3) root device
> 4) extra (additional kernel args)
> 
> Vmx (another misnomer, really any FV domain)
> 
> Required
> 1) device model path
> 
> Optional
> 2) device model arguments
> 3) DISPLAY
> 
> Device Specific Info
> 
> VBD
> 
> 1) backend ID
> 2) uname (file:/path/to/file)
> 3) dev (hda1)
> 4) mode (r, w, w!)
> 
> VIF
> 
> Required
> 1) backend ID
> 2) MAC
> 
> Optional
> 3) bridge
> 4) ip
> 5) script
> 6) vifname
> 
> PIO Range
> 
> 1) starting address
> 2) enabling address
> 
> Of course, this is subject to change as new features are added but I'm 
> pretty sure this is pretty complete.

  Good to have an exhaustive list. Thanks :-)

> >For Xen we know what is needed, at
> >least at the moment (paths to kernels, images, block devices paths, network
> >devices and I/Os), but this may change slightly with full virtualization, 
> >and other virtualization engine like QEmu have different ways since they
> >emulate the bootstrap process too.
> > 
> >
> Fortunately, since FV uses the qemu device model, we could launch qemu 
> pretty easily reusing this existing config format (since qemu already is 
> launched anyway).  However, IMHO, the VBD description Xen uses sucks so 
> I'm not sure we want to adopt it as the universal model.
> > To me we don't have a good answer to this question so that's one more 
> > reason
> >to keep this as opaque as possible.
> > 
> >
> opaqueness means easy backwards and forward compatibility so I'm 
> definitely a fan :-)

  :-)

> I definitely think it might be worthwhile to design a Xen configuration 
> schema that we could keep consistent as things move forward.  Some 
> things would obviously map 1-1 like name but other things might require 
> careful thinking (like block devices).
> 
> Thoughts?

 I can't help myself thinking of XML descriptions, but what we 
actually use are sexpr and that linking with libxml2 should be avoided
if possible (in general the linux kernel guys aren't fans of XML and
libxml2).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat http://redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]