On 08/02/2012 06:33 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Wido den Hollander <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
As we are working our way towards CS 4.0 I think we should set some system
requirements.
My experience with other Hypervisors than KVM is limited, I'd like to keep
this discussion limited to the KVM Hypervisors.
What platforms are we going to support?
The reason I'm asking that I still have a couple of things I want to fix,
but they require at least libvirt 0.9.0
Ubuntu 10.04 and RHEL/CentOS 5 ship with an ancient version of libvirt.
Ubuntu 12.04 has 0.9.8 and CentOS 6.3 has 0.9.10 while CentOS 6.2 has 0.9.4.
CentOS 6.1 has 0.8.7 though.
Are we going to set the requirement that the hypervisor should be at least
Ubuntu 12.04 or CentOS 6.2?
This way we know that we will be working with at least libvirt 0.9.4 which
has a lot more features then <0.9.0 did.
New features:
- disk I/O tuning
- More/better CPU scheduling
The exception will however be that when you want to use RBD you need at
least 0.10.0 (due to come out in a couple of days), but that's a specific
use-case for new users.
Can we set this requirement for users who want to upgrade their KVM
clusters?
Wido
So I think it's important to realize that the actual release is a
source release. That makes the question (at least in my mind) what
platforms will we build convenience binaries for, as I suspect anyone
who builds from source doesn't really care about our concepts of
'supported platforms'. The better question to define in my mind is
what versions of required libraries need to be there. (and perhaps
secondarily, will it work elsewhere - for instance the existing Ubuntu
10.04 KVM support doesn't include snapshot capabilities IIRC).
I agree with you. I just want to make it easier for users. If you say
you need at least libvirt X.X.X and Qemu X.X.X with kernel Y.Y.Y it
could confuse people.
If we say we support:
* Ubuntu 12.04
* CentOS 6.2 / 6.3
But also mention which libraries we require, we should be safe?
With that said the 3.0.x series didn't support KVM on EL5, so I see
little reason to start supporting it now, but I am somewhat concerned
about Ubuntu 10.04 support; but 4.0.0 is obviously a major 'new'
version, so if we are going to drop a 'platform', now is certainly the
time the time to do rather than orphaning folks at some point down the
road. I'd far rather see us limit ourselves to the number of platforms
that we know we can maintain going forward, rather than trying to do
everything and then dropping stuff down the road.
That was my reasoning as well. We are going to 4.0 so we have a
opportunity here.
It would be weird to drop Ubuntu 10.04 support with 4.0 -> 4.1, wouldn't it?
But yes, we actually depend on a couple of library versions, but for the
users we simply say we support platform X and Y.
I still vote for Ubuntu and RHEL/CentOS, but it's not up to me to decide
which platforms we support, we should agree on that as a community.
Wido
