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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/9] Add basic driver for Parallels Virtuozzo Server



On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:26:14PM +0400, Dmitry Guryanov wrote:
> Parallels Virtuozzo Server is a cloud-ready virtualization
> solution that allows users to simultaneously run multiple virtual
> machines and containers on the same physical server.
> 
> Current name of this product is Parallels Server Bare Metal and
> more information about it can be found here -
> http://www.parallels.com/products/server/baremetal/sp/.
> 
> This driver will work with PVS version 6.0 , beta version
> scheduled at 2012 Q2.

  Okay, I started to review this version 2 of the driver. IIRC the
first version was relying on an API which wasn't LGPL compatible so that
was a no go.
  What I understand from that second version is that now the driver
talks to the prlctl command to get information back (using JSON). That
looks acceptable, but before making further review can you fix the
following things I found out in reviewing quickly patch 1-3

  - the driver open doesn't seems to make any check about availability
    of prlctl command, it should fail to open if this is not found at
    Open() time.
  - all the entry points in the driver structure are marked as 0.9.11,
    since 0.9.11 is out already this would need to be bumped to 0.9.12
    assuming that will be the next version and the patches make it in
    time for that release (scheduled at the end of the month)
  - the configure check blindly assumes that if compiled on linux the
    pvs driver should be activated. Since we rely on a command line tool
    to provide the interface that's a relatively safe assumption, but
    if I understand correctly Parrallels requires a modified kernel
    version, which is not upstream, right ? To that extend you're at the
    same level as the OpenVZ driver (you rely on it underneath, right ?)
    Do you support all linux archs ? If not please improve the configure
    time check to the architecture you actually support.

In general I wonder why make it a new driver instead of ramping up the
existing OpenVZ one, are the 2 really incompatible, or is the existing
OpenVZ not proper for current versions ? Basically I wonder if we really
need 2 drivers assuming the implementation of the hypervisor is based on
the same core for both,

  thanks !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


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