FWN/Beats/Virtualization: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:09, 18 December 2009

Virtualization

In this section, we cover discussion of Fedora virtualization technologies on the @fedora-virt list.

Contributing Writer: Dale Bewley

Fedora Virtualization List

This section contains the discussion happening on the fedora-virt list.

Virt Status Report

Justin Forbes posted^[1] a Fedora virtualization status report. Justin pointed out F13 bugs^[2] now include Important and Pony classifications in addition to Blocker and Target.

↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00056.html
↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_bugs

RHEL and Fedora Virtualization Feature Parity

Robert Day wondered how the virtualization features^[1] of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.4 compared to Fedora 12.

Daniel Berrange explained^[2] "The KVM based virtualization in RHEL-5.4 is not nearly so far behind Fedora as you might think. The libvirt mgmt stack in RHEL-5.4 was rebased to be near parity with Fedora 11, and KVM in RHEL-5.4 is also pretty close to that using what's best described as a hybrid of kvm-83 and kvm-84."

↑ http://www.redhat.com/virtualization/rhev/
↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00040.html

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{Anchor|Virtualization}}
 == Virtualization ==
-In this section, we cover discussion on the @et-mgmnt-tools-list, @fedora-xen-list, @libvirt-list and @ovirt-devel-list of Fedora virtualization technologies.
+In this section, we cover discussion of Fedora virtualization technologies on the
+@fedora-virt list.
 Contributing Writer: [[User:Dale | Dale Bewley]]
-=== Enterprise Management Tools List ===
-This section contains the discussion happening on the
-[http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools et-mgmt-tools list]
-====  ====
-<references />
 === Fedora Virtualization List ===
@@ Line 19: / Line 14: @@
 [http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-virt fedora-virt list].
-====  ====
+==== Virt Status Report ====
-<references />
+[[JustinForbes|Justin Forbes]]
+posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00056.html</ref> a Fedora virtualization status report.
+Justin pointed out F13 bugs<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_bugs</ref> now include Important and Pony classifications in addition to Blocker and Target.
-=== Fedora Xen List ===
-This section contains the discussion happening on the
-[http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen fedora-xen list].
-====  ====
 <references />
-=== Libvirt List ===
+==== RHEL and Fedora Virtualization Feature Parity ====
-This section contains the discussion happening on the
+Robert Day wondered how the virtualization features<ref>http://www.redhat.com/virtualization/rhev/</ref> of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.4
-[http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list libvir-list].
+compared to Fedora 12.
-==== Xen PCI Device Passthrough ====
+[[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]]
-A patch<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2009-March/msg00270.html</ref> from
+explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00040.html</ref>
-[[DanielBerrange| Daniel P. Berrange]]
+"The KVM based virtualization in RHEL-5.4 is not nearly so far behind
-"provides initial support for PCI device passthrough in
+Fedora as you might think. The {{package|libvirt}} mgmt stack in RHEL-5.4 was
-Xen, at time of boot. It does not (yet) implement device hotplug
+rebased to be near parity with [[Releases/11|Fedora 11]], and KVM in RHEL-5.4 is
-for PCI".
+also pretty close to that using what's best described as a hybrid of
-"XenD only supports 'unmanaged' PCI devices - ie mgmt app is responsible
+kvm-83 and kvm-84."
-for detaching/reattaching PCI devices from/to  host device drivers.
-XenD itself won't automatically do this".
 <references />
-==== Secure Guest Migration Draft Patch ====
-[[ChrisLalancette|Chris Lalancette]]
-followed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2009-March/msg00276.html</ref>
-the RFC<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue166#Secure_Guest_Migration_Between_Hosts</ref>
-of last week with a "rough first draft of the secure migration code" and sought comments on the approach before putting the final polish on it.
-[[DanielVeillard|Daniel Veillard]]
+====  ====
-wasn't enitrely satisfied<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2009-March/msg00338.html</ref>
+<references />
-with the "costs related to the 64KB chunking imposed by the XML-RPC" and was
-"Trying to reopen a bit the discussion we had before on opening a
-separate encrypted connection".
-Daniel Veillard
-"would like to make sure we have room in the initial phase
-to add such a negociation where an optimal solution" on a dedicated TCP/IP
-connection "may be attempted, possibly falling back to a normal XML-RPC solution".
-[[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]]
-pointed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2009-March/msg00341.html</ref> out
-"This isn't XML-RPC. This is our own binary protocol using XDR encoding,
-which has very little metadata overhead - just a single 24 byte header
-per 64kb of data.", and poposed a 'MIGRATION_INCOMING' message which could
-cause <code>libvirted</code> to "switch the TCP channel to 'data stream' mode."
-[[ChrisLalancette|Chris Lalancette]]
-tested the migration code and found the draft secure migration caused a
-"slowdown of between 1.5 and 3 times".
-"What I'm going to do early next week is do some additional work to try to get
-DanB's suggestion of the STREAM_DATA RPC working.  Then I'll try benchmarking
-(both for duration, and CPU usage)".
+====  ====
 <references />

Search