* Eduardo Habkost (ehabk...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:03:16PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:09:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > The closest to a cross-hypervisor standard is OVF which can store > > > > metadata about required hardware for a VM. I'm pretty sure it does > > > > not have the concept of machine types, but maybe it has a way for > > > > people to define metadata extensions. Since it is just XML at the > > > > end of the day, even if there was nothing official in OVF, it would > > > > be possible to just define a custom XML namespace and declare a > > > > schema for that to follow. > > > > > > I have a great deal of experience with the OVF "standard". > > > TL;DR: DO NOT USE IT. > > > > In addition to the detail below, from reading DMTF's OVF spec (DSP0243 v > > 2.1.1) I see absolutely nothing specifying hardware type. > > Sure it can specify size of storage, number of ether cards, MAC > > addresses for them etc - but I don't see any where specify the type of > > emualted system. > > Maybe the VirtualHardwareSection/System/vssd:VirtualSystemType > element could be used for that. (DSP0243 v2.1.1, line 650).
Ah yes, you're right; they hadn't bothered putting that in any of the examples. A quick search suggests VMWare use that as 'vmx-10' or 'vmx-12' as a 'hardware faimily'. > But based on Richard's feedback, I think we shouldn't even try to > use it. Right; although if we have a key/value system, then if the key/value structures we used happened to match up with OVMF if they made sense then I guess it would make conversions easy. Dave > -- > Eduardo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
