[CentOS] virt-manager crashes Host during installation of guest

Fri Aug 21 02:09:04 UTC 2009
Ian Murray <murrayie at yahoo.co.uk>




----- Original Message ----
> From: Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>
> To: centos at centos.org
> Sent: Thursday, 20 August, 2009 19:31:21
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] virt-manager crashes Host during installation of guest
> 
> Ian Murray wrote on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:21:33 +0000 (GMT):
> 
> > Actual, virt-install commmand line looks no less daunting to me.
> 
> What is "daunting" about "virt-install -p"?

[root at xen ~]# virt-install -p
ERROR    A name is required for the virtual machine.
[root at xen ~]# virt-install -p -n newdom
ERROR    Memory amount is required for the virtual machine.
[root at xen ~]# virt-install -p -n newdom -r 256
ERROR    A disk must be specified (use --nodisks to override)

So it goes on... I suppose once you plough through all the options and save the whole command somewhere, then it is trivial to create new ones, but I got the impression that it was interactive for any missing options.

Perhaps for the benefit of the OP, perhaps you could give a complete known working example.

> 
> > I don't know if that is possible under virt-install.
> 
> Everything is possible, it depends on how deep you want to dig into it. This guy
> just wants to get his first Xen VM up for some testing (I suppose). There is no
> need to follow lengthy explanations and fail in the end if there is a simple 
> command available.
> 
> > I think tap:aio is more favoured than file, for performance reasons.
> 
> This is general belief. I suggest doing some tests. After that you may think 
> different. ;-) Also, there have been various problems with tap:aio devices in 
> the
> various Xen incarnations over time that weren't present in file.

Well, if you have done such tests, please do share... especially on the xen-users list, as there are far more competent Xen-ers to discuss your findings than me.

> You want to use LVM or remote storage for real world usage, anyway, but that 
> wasn't the task outlined by the OP.

File based domains initially seemed the simplest way for me, but after a while I concluded they were a but of a pain actually, so indeed I do stick with LVs.