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 <jonludlam> Hello <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 http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status ? <lars_kurth> So: no changes then? [14:06] <gwd> We chatted at the hackathon (with Daniel Barrange there) about libvirt versions <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" <jonludlam> 'unstable'? <gwd> More like, "Not enterprise". :-) <jonludlam> ok <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 + later libvirt <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 (with libvirt) <gwd> pasik / euanh: We were just talking about how often to update the libvirt packages. <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 work. <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 frequent updates. <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 backporting <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 http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-May/003832.html <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 often.. [14:23] <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? <lars_kurth> See http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-June/003865.html for meeting minutes <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> yes <gwd> Cool. <jonludlam> although exactly how to define maturity is left unspecified :-) [14:31] <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 http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-June/003865.html that 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 <jonludlam> correct <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 sig-virt-xen repos <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. _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
