True. My goal is that if this works out for everyone, that someday it
might get pulled into the distribution. ZFS has it advantages, but you
are correct. Not everyone in the world wants to use ZFS (for whatever
the reason might be). Will make sure the core features stays file system
Great feedback and thank you. Looks like it might not hurt to continue
the work, at least for now.
My reasoning for a C based tool was to be able to use libvmmapi to get
deeper integration with the bhyve framework. Let's see how things go.
I will work on getting the basics functioning and
Well,
in all honesty, getting vm managers to kvm equivalents ( ie virt-manager )
should not be a goal. virt-manager and friends are terrible. Please
envision something better!
Where it is hosted and what language it is written in doesn't really matter.
Just my 2 cents.
Best regards
Andreas
On
Going back to the original message in the thread, yes, I think the more the
merrier.
I created iohyve to solve a problem I had. I wanted to store my bhyve VM's
in ZFS.
Matt C. created vm-bhyve to solve the problem of storing VM's in a manager
that didn't use ZFS.
Matt and I have traded ideas back
