On 04.05.2013 16:36, Dave Scott wrote:
Hi George,
About an updated xapi.rpm -- that's an interesting idea. Mike: what do
you think?
My personal opinion is that we would benefit from converging XCP and
XenServer more, so that updates to XenServer contain useful updates to
XCP too. I think the main thing to do is to split the packages into
two repositories: one containing XCP (ie the majority of the packages)
and a second non-free repo which contains one or two binaries (things
like 3rd party storage array control tools) which would be in
XenServer but not installed by default on XCP (although it would
probably be possible to install them anyway,a bit like the situation
with non-free graphics drivers on Ubuntu)
What do you think?
Em... I'm sorry, but what binaries in XCP are non-free? I thought
StorageLink is proprientary and was not planned to be distributes with
XCP. My main concern is:
1) Hypervisor. There was few CVE's recently for xen, so new updates are
welcome (actaully, right now for the product we unpacking XenServer
fixes, but this is lame)
2) Kernel. Same stuff.
3) tapdisk/vhdutil, etc. We was really hurt after hitting VHD corruption
bug in XCP 1.1 about half year after fix in Xenserver (but not XCP) -
about that time we starts to snatch XenServer's one.
4) Main problem and main update we can't simply unpack from XenServer -
xapi binaries.
As far as I understand there is different builds for xapi in XCP and
xapi for XenServer. Difference is within licensing and HA functionality
(which is XenServer only). Or I'm wrong and binaries are compatible?
_______________________________________________
Xen-api mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
