[CentOS-virt] Log from today's IRC meeting (June 3rd, 2014)
lars.kurth at xen.org
Tue Jun 3 17:06:02 UTC 2014
With slight re-ordering to keep related things together
<kbsingh> lars_kurth: Hi [13:52]
<kbsingh> Are we doing this meeting on irc ?
<lars_kurth> kbsingh: yes, we are [13:59]
<lars_kurth> gwd: Hi. [14:02]
<lars_kurth> Alright. I didn't put an agenda together
<gwd> I've got a couple of things I wanted to bring up. [14:04]
<gwd> Who else is here for the meeting?
<lars_kurth> Please do. I think KB has some too
<lars_kurth> gwd: seems we have jonludlam, kbsingh gwd and me so far [14:05]
<lars_kurth> Hi. Before we properly start. Any changes on actions on
<lars_kurth> So: no changes then? [14:06]
<gwd> We chatted at the hackathon (with Daniel Barrange there) about
<jonludlam> That was a good session [14:07]
<lars_kurth> gwd: what was the outcome/recommendation?
<gwd> What we said there was that libvirt/libxl driver isn't yet stable,
so there's no point doing a "choose a version and stick with it" thing
until it is.
<lars_kurth> gwd: that is what I was afraid of [14:08]
<jonludlam> so libvirt becomes a 'tech preview' until it stabilises?
<gwd> Er, I don't think "tech preview"
<gwd> More like, "Not enterprise". :-)
<pasik> hello [14:09]
<jonludlam> hi pasik
<gwd> pasik: Hello
<gwd> You know, like the kernel we want to be "enterprise" and only
update every 2+ years.
<lars_kurth> But that is only an issue for libxl, mot xm. Correct? If we
are still talking Xen 4.4 that should not be an issue
<gwd> I don't think we want to encourage anyone to use xend if we can
possibly help it.
<gwd> We need to transition people away from it. [14:10]
<jonludlam> libvirt is a reasonable transition strategy though
<gwd> Is there a need for "enterprise libvirt"? Is anyone using that?
<pasik> Hopefully we can get thinks into better shape with xen 4.4 +
<lars_kurth> Agreed. How about the needs of KVM, oVirt, ... for libvirt
<pasik> with the current xen 4.2 packages basicly only xend is usable
<gwd> pasik / euanh: We were just talking about how often to update the
<jonludlam> ovirt will take a good deal of porting to work with xen
<lars_kurth> jonludlam: correct. But this SIG is not about Xen only [14:11]
<jonludlam> true, but
<gwd> jonludlam: given how much hypervisor detail is exposed by libvirt,
how reliable would a libvirt/xend -> libvirt/libxl transition go?
<jonludlam> What was said was that ovirt effectively doesn't need
anything provided by what we're looking at in sig virt today [14:12]
<jonludlam> gwd, I don't think it would be too bad - it already
autodetects whether to use xl or xm based on what's installed, if you
connect to xen://
<gwd> lars_kurth: I think if someone wants to use oVirt+KVM, they can
use the core libvirt.
<gwd> jonludlam: Sure, but as we found out, libvirt doesn't try very
hard to hide the hypervisor details. [14:13]
<jonludlam> qemu was mentioned in the meeting at the hackathon, but it's
totally orthogonal to everything else in the SIG so far
<jonludlam> gwd, but the difference between libxl and xend is much
smaller than between qemu and xen
<gwd> Sure; but it may still be a fairly major headache to get stuff to
<lars_kurth> kbsingh: any views? I thought you were worried about scope
creep in the SIG.
<lars_kurth> Sorry: SIG [14:14]
<gwd> And what actually works well with libvirt+xen at the moment
anyway? xm/xl are better than virsh, IMHO
<lars_kurth> gwd: That is probably correct. On the other hand, we don't
have an interface into Cloud SIGs until we have libvirt and/or xapi
<jonludlam> the xapi question was a bit clearer after the meetings. Anil
and KB talked about an OCaml SIG that the virt SIG could
<gwd> lars_kurth: Yes, but those are not going to be enterprisey either. :-)
<lars_kurth> gwd: so what is the proposal
<gwd> The proprosals are: depend on
<gwd> 1) Choose a version of libvirt (1.2.3 maybe) and stick with it,
backporting functionality we're missing. [14:16]
<gwd> 2) Update the libvirt package when there's a new libvirt release
until libxl support is mature enough
<pasik> gwd: I use virt-install often to install new VMs
<pasik> gwd: imho it's the easiest way to launch $distro installers in a
PV domU [14:17]
<gwd> #2 is easier for us, and will get us all the available libvirt/xen
functionality; it's what we favored at the metting at the hackathon.
<pasik> gwd: and virt-install works with xen4.2+xend+libvirt in el6
<gwd> The only downside is that enterprise customers don't like such
<jonludlam> Daniel B said that #1 would be tricky, as they were
refactoring the other bits of libvirt to make the xl plugin easier [14:18]
<DV> We really try to not break libvirt upstream, ideally having the git
version run for regtests on libxl would be a good idea
<gwd> DV: Upstream Xen Project already does that.
<DV> * DV agrees with danpb , even in RHEL we rebase to try to avoid
<gwd> Having a new libvirt shouldn't *interfere* with oVirt,
virt-install, &c&c. [14:19]
<DV> gwd: ah, good, are the result available publicly, if yes then maybe
breakages should be reported on libvirt-list!
<DV> err libvir-list@
<gwd> DV: Can you mail me about that separately? It's a bit off-topic
for the current meeting. :-) [14:20]
<DV> gwd: hum, the problem is that there is usually a few RHEL specific
patches which used to be carried on libvirt builds
<lars_kurth> Related to the libvirt version discussion is
<pasik> gwd: and also virt-manager works OK with el6 xen4.2+xend+libvirt
<pasik> gwd: for basic VM management operations, and new VM installs
<DV> but I think we tried to reduce them as much as possible
<pasik> gwd: so maybe that answers your "And what actually works well
with libvirt+xen at the moment anyway?"
<DV> pasik: ah, good to know ! [14:21]
<gwd> Just to be clear: the question is NOT "do we need libvirt". Yes,
we absolutely do.
<gwd> The question is, "Do we need a super-stable libvirt, or can we
just update on new releases for the time being." [14:22]
<lars_kurth> Related to that is then: how long would we be on cutting
edge libvirt version (by gut feel)
<jonludlam> gwd, and, if we are updating to new releases often, is that
with a view to converging?
<pasik> gwd: well, centos6 is an enterprise stable distro, se people
expect things to be (at least semi) stable.
<pasik> gwd: we can of course make it clear libvirt will change more
<gwd> Well let's discuss this on the list.
<DV> * DV think within the SIG the rule 'things should be absolutely
rock solid' could be relaxed, but only a bit [14:24]
<gwd> kbsingh: Actually, that's another question: centos-devel isn't
really that high traffic. Would it make sense to have the development
discussions held on there?
<gwd> OK, so that's going to be taken back to the list. [14:25]
<lars_kurth> OK: adding an action
<lars_kurth> gwd: are you OK to make a proposal? [14:26]
<gwd> That's all the updates I have from the status: we're still waiting
for the core CentOS team to get something set up to make contribution
easier; there was some discussion of using koji, like Fedora.
<gwd> lars_kurth: Yes, I'll do that.
<lars_kurth> What next on the agenda? [14:29]
<gwd> Did everyone see the Xen Hackathon meeting minutes? Anyone have
any questions about that?
<gwd> jonludlam: "...with a view to converging" -- you mean, to stop
updating once libvirt+libxl is mature? Yes, that was my idea. [14:30]
<jonludlam> although exactly how to define maturity is left unspecified
<gwd> So I had one quick question for kbsingh -- should I merge my "git
am" change into the main CentOS repo on github? Is there anything else
that need to get that actually built?
<lars_kurth> kbsingh: AYT? [14:32]
<gwd> (Or maybe hughesjr ^)
<gwd> OK, I think most of what I had really needs kb's input. :-) [14:34]
<lars_kurth> gwd: maybe ping kbsingh and/or hughesjr an e-mail (or on-list)
<gwd> Related to the "build images" thing -- is there a better way to
make images that doesn't require libvirt? [14:35]
<lars_kurth> Any other items from
we need to discuss?
<gwd> The only tool like that I've ever used is xen-tools, which might
be possible, but it would be nicer if there were something that could
make images either for Xen or KVM. [14:36]
<lars_kurth> It seems it may make sense to track jonludlam about Ocaml
SIG and XAPI in the actions
<jonludlam> lars_kurth, sure
<lars_kurth> jonludlam: can you summarize that discussion briefly?
<jonludlam> I'll poke anil :-)
<jonludlam> Right: anil & KB discussed creating an OCaml SIG which would
take the most recent version of the ocaml compiler: 4.01 [14:37]
<jonludlam> RHEL 7 will have 4.00.1 (not recent enough)
<jonludlam> SIG virt could then depend upon the OCaml SIG, but
crucially, only the OCaml bindings from the sig virt would then depend
upon the ocaml sig [14:38]
<jonludlam> oxenstore doesn't need any runtime dependence on any ocaml libs
<lars_kurth> OK. Makes sense. So the ball is in Anil's court
<lars_kurth> gwd, pasik: re xen-tools ... anyone knows whether there is
such a thing for Xen and KVM [14:39]
<gwd> lars_kurth: I don't understand the question. [14:41]
<lars_kurth> gwd: was referring back to xen-tools ... what I meant is
whether virt-manager provides the same functionality + more than xen-tools
<gwd> lars_kurth: virt-install I think will do that, but it depends on
libvirt; which seems to confuse some people. [14:44]
<lars_kurth> gwd: re virt-install confusion. If we introduced something
else, it is likely it will also confuse people. In any case may be
better to rely on documentation [14:45]
<gwd> virt-install> But I guess when we add an updated libvirt, then
things should work more easily.
<jonludlam> lars_kurth, btw, I had another action to send a PR with
updated RPM packaging layout as an RFC
<gwd> jonludlam: You should be able to d/l the tarballs manually though.
<gwd> jonludlam: And I had an action to send you a how-to build the
<jonludlam> yup! [14:42]
<lars_kurth> jonludlam: OK, a new one? What is the context?
<gwd> jonludlam: But it turns out the binary-download thing isn't ready
yet -- KB doesn't want the world spamming his (previously) private ftp
server. They're trying to come up with a new system similar to Fedora,
but it's not ready yet. [14:43]
<jonludlam> gwd, ok - are there many that aren't in the current
Xen4CentOS SRPM repo?
<gwd> (There was just someone on centos-virt complaining about how hard
it was to build an image for Xen4CentOS and the poor documentation.)
<jonludlam> lars_kurth, the idea was to try to get the work done by Andy
Cooper & co to reorganise the layout of the binary RPMs taken up
<lars_kurth> gwd: thank you. Got it [14:46]
<lars_kurth> jonludlum: Added the action
<lars_kurth> Looks we are running out of steam. Anything else?
<gwd> No -- I think following up on the "where do oVirt and xapi go"
discussion is the only other thing I had, but we need KB for that.
<lars_kurth> OK. Maybe it is better to do this on the next call. It's
easier then [14:49]
<gwd> OK -- any other business?
<lars_kurth> Alright: we are closed then [14:52]
<gwd> OK, looks like we're done.
More information about the CentOS-virt