On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:07:56AM -0400, Ronald Perez wrote:
> Gareth S Bestor/Beaverton/IBM wrote on 09/15/2006 09:57:44 AM:
> > certainly the CIM model supports the notion of 'recursive'
> virtualization hosting.
> > However, I'm unclear how much of that we want to try and slap into the
> API for
> > xend; in particular, are you thinking the host system will now running
> > xend's, in different Domains?
> > - G
> You're correct to point out the differences between the CIM modeling goals
> and the Xen API (thanks, at this early stage, I often confuse the two).
> I guess I'm saying that the Xen API should not preclude such a direct
> mapping from model -> implementation. In practical terms, this could
> include the existence of multiple xend's (or equivalent) on a platform.
> This could be for the parent -> child scenario I mentioned before, or it
> could just be a high availability issue (e.g., sort of a dom0 hot
> back-up). Granted, there's a lot of clever engineering needed to make any
> of these scenarios a reality :-)
> So in summary, I tend to agree more with John's and Dan's approach (but
> I'd like to see some details in regard to the capabilities Dan mentions).
That's the $1,000,000 question :-) Just what capabilities do we need to
represent to meet the needs of management applications using the API ?
So far this thread has mentioned what lifecycle states are possible for
a given domain, and what resource adjustments can be made to a domain.
Its probably unrealistic to come up with a complete set ahead of time, so
we probably need an initial basic set which is expanded over time.
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
xen-api mailing list