On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:38:23AM -0400, Bret McMillan wrote: > I think we're confusing the notion of what a passive domain is with what > config files happen to be sitting on / exposed to the dom0 machine. I > could very easily look at having an rdbms store the info about the > passive domain, hand that down to the dom0 via rpc, and directly call > the createLinux call. To me, that's still a passive domain, even though > it's configs haven't touched disk yet. Yup, to me they are different level. > I guess I'm also struggling to understand why you'd toss this into > xenstore... it just seems this is a higher level concept that needs to > be tracked in too specific a way by management systems. The reason it would be useful to save this in xenstore is to garantee the same vision between different application managing that node (for example a remote supervision tool and a local launcher used by the user). Otherwise just keeping this information in libvirt own memory would be just fine, I'm still unsure the need to synchronize is really there. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/