> -----Original Message----- > From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CloudStack 4.0 KVM system requirements > > > > 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
+1, drop ubuntu 10.04, as it will take some extra efforts to support both 10.04 and 12.04. > > 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
