Hi Dave, * Dave Miner (dminer at opensolaris.org) wrote: > Glenn Lagasse wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I've uploaded the functional specification for this project to be >> reviewed at: >> >> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/VMC >> > > Thanks for getting this out. > > A big -1 to fixed-width fonts in documents.
Sorry about that. I've corrected it and future revisions will look a bit nicer. > 1.2 This is somewhat wishy-washy about what to expect for > non-VirtualBox hypervisors. I'd suggest a clear statement of whether > it's in scope (and hence expected to be tested) or not, as specifically > as you can be. The only other bona-fide interested consumer I know of is the xVM team. That said, it should be possible for VMWare clients to use the images since it supports OVF but I haven't actually tried it. I'm not aware of any requirement that we make our images work with VMWare so I believe I can reword this to talk about VB and xVM exclusively. Unless anyone else knows of other required hypervisors we have to work with. > 1.4.1 It's not clear to me that the unified design "project" (I use > quotes because it's a design effort, not a project at this point) > actually would include a bootable AI image in its scope. I would > suggest this is re-phrased as a "bootable image which can perform an > automated installation without need of additional services beyond an IPS > package repository" because it's not really the same as an AI image, in > terms of the existing AI definition. What projects besides this one > require creating that, actually? Sarah has said that her replication and recovery effort would consume such an ISO for starters. > 1.5 What version of OpenSolaris? More specific about VirtualBox version? These versions are subject to change, but I see what you mean. For now, OpenSolaris version 2010.02 and VirtualBox 2.2.2 (the VB version will likely get bumped to whatever is most recent as we get closer to integration). > 1.6 VDI - I'm pretty sure that the VDI used by VirtualBox is for Virtual > Disk Image; the other VDI you reference here relates to things like > Citrix and Sun Ray. You're entirely correct. I meant to change that prior to publication and missed it in my last review. I'll correct it. > 2.2 Seems like we should talk to the LDOMs team to see what their plans > are in this area, just to be certain we're not missing alignment. I can do that. Do you happen to know who I'd contact for starters? > 4.0 (and 6.1.1) I'm not entirely clear; will we be providing for > download a pre-built image suitable for use to get started, or is the > user expected to build one? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking if we're going to start providing pre-built VM images based on slim_cd? > 6.1.1 This seems unlikely to be the "default" case. The slim CD package > list is not that interesting to most of the use cases I would expect to > be applied here. Suggest this needs some discussion with the JeOS folks > around what a good default scenario might be. I agree that it's not really interesting, but it does serve as a fine description of a plain vanilla scenario that outlines the process. I could 'spice' it up and turn the image into say a Developer's image that contained ss-dev, gcc-dev and whatnot. > (Didn't have time to really go through the other cases yet). Thanks for the comments thus far! -- Glenn
