On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:52:42PM +0200, Dennis J. wrote: > On 07/24/2009 12:22 AM, Cole Robinson wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >I've been reworking the main manager view in virt-manager. You can check > >out a screenshot here: > > > >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/vmm-manager-1-overview.png > > > >The code can be cloned from here: > > > >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/virt-manager.manager_ui > > > >I've changed the following pieces: > > > >- Lower button bar is now a toolbar at the top of the window. I think > >this is obvious: a toolbar at the top is much more in line with existing > >UI convention, and is more intuitive. > > > >- Dropped the 'View: Active/Inactive' combo box. I don't think anybody > >was using this option, and it was only taking up space. > > > >- Dropped all columns except Name, Status, and Stats. Columns like vcpus > >and memory progress bar really added no value. Most of these columns > >were for stats reporting which, while useful, would largely balloon the > >list (if enabled) to the point of uselessness. If we want good stats > >comparison, we should have an entire separate screen for this, which > >could provide many more comparison metrics. > > > >- Allow changing what the single graph column is measuring: cpu, disk, > >or network. This way users can still have an at a glance comparison of > >the metric of their choice. Screenshot: > > > >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/vmm-manager-1-graphs.png > > I don't find it very useful that the VMs are divided according to the VM > driver they use. From my perspective I have machines X, Y and Z and most of > the time I don't really care if they are Xen, KVM, Qemu, etc. VMs. > If I have 10 Webservers of which 5 run on Xen and 5 on KVM then I would > still like to see them as a group of 10 Webservers rather than being split > into two groups according to the driver. This isn't really dividing up VMs based on driver type. Each grouping their represents a seperate libvirt connection, which under normal usage would represent separate host. So the grouping is really just hosts, and vms on the host. The mockup here is a little misleading in that it shows a bunch of libvirt connections on the same host but with different hypervisors, which is not something you'd ever really have. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
