On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:01:50PM +0400, Dmitry Guryanov wrote: > On 04/16/2012 06:13 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:26:14PM +0400, Dmitry Guryanov wrote: > >>Parallels Virtuozzo Server is a cloud-ready virtualization > >>solution that allows users to simultaneously run multiple virtual > >>machines and containers on the same physical server. > >> > >>Current name of this product is Parallels Server Bare Metal and > >>more information about it can be found here - > >>http://www.parallels.com/products/server/baremetal/sp/. > >> > >>This driver will work with PVS version 6.0 , beta version > >>scheduled at 2012 Q2. > > Okay, I started to review this version 2 of the driver. IIRC the > >first version was relying on an API which wasn't LGPL compatible so that > >was a no go. > > What I understand from that second version is that now the driver > >talks to the prlctl command to get information back (using JSON). That > >looks acceptable, but before making further review can you fix the > >following things I found out in reviewing quickly patch 1-3 > > > > - the driver open doesn't seems to make any check about availability > > of prlctl command, it should fail to open if this is not found at > > Open() time. > > - all the entry points in the driver structure are marked as 0.9.11, > > since 0.9.11 is out already this would need to be bumped to 0.9.12 > > assuming that will be the next version and the patches make it in > > time for that release (scheduled at the end of the month) > Ok, I'll correct these things. > > > - the configure check blindly assumes that if compiled on linux the > > pvs driver should be activated. Since we rely on a command line tool > > to provide the interface that's a relatively safe assumption, but > > if I understand correctly Parrallels requires a modified kernel > > version, which is not upstream, right ? > PVS is a full distribution, based on cloud linux and it > has modified kernel. > >To that extend you're at the > > same level as the OpenVZ driver (you rely on it underneath, right ?) > > Do you support all linux archs ? If not please improve the configure > > time check to the architecture you actually support. > Ok, I'll add additional checks. Okay, should be simple enough to fix those 3 bits > >In general I wonder why make it a new driver instead of ramping up the > >existing OpenVZ one, are the 2 really incompatible, or is the existing > >OpenVZ not proper for current versions ? Basically I wonder if we really > >need 2 drivers assuming the implementation of the hypervisor is based on > >the same core for both, > First, PVS and OpenVZ are different products, PVS includes > full virtualization support and OS level one, OpenVz supports > only OS level virtualization. In PVS both types of virtual > environments can be managed using single prlctl utility, while > vzctl can handle only containers. This version of pvs driver > supports only virtual machines, but support of containers > planned too. > > Second, prlctl and vzctl+vzlist have completely different output, > command-line parameters also differ, especially in devices and > network parameters. I think that drivers, which supports two > types of virtualization and works with two different utilities > will be too complicated and it's better to have two separate > drivers. > Also OpenVZ driver works directly with containers config > files in some places, which is not possible while using prlctl. Okay, thanks for the explanations :-) The simple fact that PVS can do full virt support is IMHO a sufficient differentiator ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list