On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:11:25PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:47:10PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > Currently XenD/XenStore doesn't provide a real UUID for Domain-0 - its
> > > always fixed at 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000. If the new API is
> > > to allow management of multiple hosts having all their Dom-0's with a
> > > null UUID is going to complicate things somewhat for users of the API.
> > Yes, that's a good point. The reason we did that initially was to ensure
> > that
> > your domain 0 UUID didn't change across a reboot (there was a reason we
> > needed
> > that, but I can't remember what it was right now).
> > I think that we could arrange for domain 0 to get a real but fixed UUID.
> > > Is it intended to expose the real UUID of the host being managed. Most
> > > machines I've encountered have a UUID embedded in the SMBIOS which would
> > > be the obvious thing to use for Domain-0
> > >
> > > $ lshal | grep smbios.system.uuid
> > > smbios.system.uuid = 'EF861801-45B9-11CB-88E3-AFBFE5370493' (string)
> > Well, the host itself needs a UUID too -- wouldn't the SMBIOS UUID be more
> > appropriate for the host, rather than domain 0?
> Well if the fully virt guests are going to have their have UUID exposed
> via SMBIOS, and bare metal OS already uses SMBIOS, then Domain-0 should
> be consistent, hence SMBIOS too (yes I'm conveniently ignoring paravirt,
> which has no SMBIOS at this time) Why would we need different UUID for
> the host, vs Domain-0 OS ? My concern existing userspace tools requiring
> a UUID for the host/OS currently use SMBIOS, so its desirable to have
> then 'just work' in virtualized env without changes.
I think that the host and domain 0 are significantly different things, and
certainly should have different UUIDs. It would be ever so confusing if there
was an instance of Vm and an instance of Host with the same UUID.
xen-api mailing list