[CentOS-virt] Introducing ConVirt 2.0

Pasi Kärkkäinen pasik at iki.fi
Mon Mar 8 07:48:13 UTC 2010

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 02:54:53AM -0600, Christopher G. Stach II wrote:
> ----- "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik at iki.fi> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 09:04:20AM -0500, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> > > Why would one use ConVirt instead of the management tools included in
> > > RHEL and/or CentOS?  What's the difference?
> > 
> > RHEL/CentOS doesn't provide web-based management.. or even easy 
> > multi-host / cluster management of virtualization nodes.
> > 
> > -- Pasi
> Are there any *good* reasons? (Since I really hate commercials, I feel compelled to present my contrarian viewpoint.) ConVirt addresses a pretty small portion of the virtualization landscape, and it consists of only a few significant parts:
> 1. Do what other free and open tools already do.
> 2. Slap a web interface on it!
> 3. Spam lists.
> 4. Rope in suckers.
> The suggestion that a web interface is a value add to an infrastructure issue is at least insulting. You could attempt to slap a web interface on a fuel injection system (or maybe at least give access to the magic a la MegaSquirt), but a bunch of assholes are still going to blow something up. It's not going to give any admin worth his or her salt a boner because it's not readily scriptable and it amounts to candy for retards. Secondly, everything else that it does is already there. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be touching the machines.
> The tool may or may not address some vanilla installations (if there ever was one), but if you need something like that, you are probably better off with EC2 or at least letting someone else handle it.

You have some good points here. An user API is absolutely a requirement for system like this,
to let the powerusers/admins script things and create custom management scripts.

Web interface frontend should/could be using the same API!

-- Pasi

More information about the CentOS-virt mailing list