On 07/11/2013 08:04 PM, Leonardo Bianconi wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Itamar Heim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: sábado, 25 de maio de 2013 10:12
To: Michal Skrivanek
Cc: Leonardo Bianconi; [email protected]; Roy Golan
Subject: Re: oVirt on IBM POWER (PPC64) - new feature contributors
On 05/22/2013 10:46 AM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On May 21, 2013, at 17:33 , Leonardo Bianconi
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
We are planning to deliver support for PPC64 in 4 phases. We will manage to
deliver a set of patches at the end of each phase.
Phase 1
Change oVirt to handle other architectures by encapsulating all the
architecture specific code and queries about the capabilities of the hypervisor
into a new class called ArchStrategy (based on the Strategy Design Pattern).
Every operation involving clusters and hosts will be validated by this new
class. Some hard-coded parameters are going to be replaced by queries in the
backend in order to accommodate the support for new architectures into the
engine.
If you would like to discuss some internals or if anything is unclear please
feel free to set up a quick mtg with myself, Omer and Roy.
Sometimes (e.g. in the case of VmInterfaceType as mentioned on feature page) it
would be actually beneficial for oVirt on x86 as well to have a greater
flexibility directly in the code, without Strategy encapsulation.
Phase 2
Currently, each host hypervisor capabilities are obtained using
hard-coded data structures. These structures will be replaced either by some
form of integration with libosinfo or by reading internal configuration files
describing these capabilities. It will be handled after Roy's patch.
Roy's osinfo will soon be merged.
link to patches?
does it cover adding arch at cluster level?
Sorry about the late reply. We have already handled the gap between the osinfo
patch, the architecture parameters are being stored the same way as the OS info.
We didn't add a specific architecture field on each cluster, because based on
the cpu name and cluster compatibility version of the cluster the architecture
can be determined. Do you think it is really necessary to add another way to
describe the architecture of each cluster?
i think it would be much easier to specify the list of OSs per arch
type, rather than per list of cpu's. it will also be easier to know if a
VM can be created from a template based on their arch, rather than cpu
lists (since x86_64 has a new cpu family every 6 months usually).
similarly, it will be easier to know if you can move a VM between two
clusters, according to their arch, rather trying to understand if their
cpu families allow that or not (you can move a VM between intel and amd
cpu families).
so i think cluster arch is a good grouping for cpu families that are
compatible.
(and I wonder if anyone will get to add an arm arch as well...)
in any case, I was very happy to see the set of patches arriving.
Thanks,
Itamar
Phase 3
The code for providing the support for IBM POWER systems will be added.
The encapsulation done in the previous phase will reduce the effort to include
this feature into the engine. The other changes that will be introduced in this
phase include:
- Modifications in the frontend to avoid running a VM created on a
POWER host in a x86-64 host (and vice-versa),
- All the dynamically provided capacities of the first phase will be
implemented according to the capacities of the QEMU/KVM on POWER
- The POWER processors will be available as an option in the list of
processor names (this will imply in significant changes in the
backend)
Phase 4
Adapt secondary features to polish the support for POWER:
- OVF import and export of VMs running in POWER hosts
- Dynamic searches capable of finding hosts, pools, vms and clusters
according to their architectures
Is there any ongoing oVirt architecture refactoring ? (that may
conflict with Phase 1, for instance)
no, nothing major going on
Any comments ?
Looking forward to your patches!:-)
Thanks,
michal
Regards,
Vitor ([email protected]) / Leonardo
([email protected])
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Neary [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: quarta-feira, 15 de maio de 2013 12:25
To: Leonardo Bianconi
Cc: [email protected]; Adam Litke
Subject: Re: oVirt on IBM POWER (PPC64) - new feature contributors
Hi,
On 05/14/2013 08:05 PM, Leonardo Bianconi wrote:
We would like to introduce ourselves: Leonardo Bianconi and Vitor Lima.
Welcome!
We would like to work on the features "Engine support for PPC64"
(http://wiki.ovirt.org/Features/Engine_support_for_PPC64) and the "Vdsm for PPC64"
(http://wiki.ovirt.org/Features/Vdsm_for_PPC64). This work has already been started by some
developers at IBM.
<snip>
About libosinfo:
=============
In the previous discussion about this topic
(http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/arch/2012-November/000976.html), occurred in
November 2012, it was suggested that integrating the libosinfo into the engine
would be a better way to handle the differences between the architectures that
would be supported in the future.
Is this approach still valid? If so, when will it be available? It seems to be a
dependency for oVirt "Engine_support_for_PPC64" feature implementation.
This is great news. I don't know who, specifically, has been working on this
issue in IBM - perhaps Adam Litke (CCed) can update you on the progress that
has been made.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards,
Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
_______________________________________________
Arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
_______________________________________________
Arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
_______________________________________________
Arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
