[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 04/16/2012 06:13 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
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)
Ok, I'll correct these things.

   - 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 ?
PVS is a full distribution, based on cloud linux and it
has modified kernel.
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.
Ok, I'll add additional checks.

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,
First, PVS and OpenVZ are different products, PVS includes
full virtualization support and OS level one, OpenVz supports
only OS level virtualization. In PVS both types of virtual
environments can be managed using single prlctl utility, while
vzctl can handle only containers. This version of pvs driver
supports only virtual machines, but support of containers
planned too.

Second, prlctl and vzctl+vzlist have completely different output,
command-line parameters also differ, especially in devices and
network parameters. I think that drivers, which supports two
types of virtualization and works with two different utilities
will be too complicated and it's better to have two separate
drivers.
Also OpenVZ driver works directly with containers config
files in some places, which is not possible while using prlctl.

Thanks for your response !

   thanks !

Daniel



--
Dmitry Guryanov


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