| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-cim
Re: [Xen-cim] dom0 vs domu vs domDriver
Yeah, I agree. The latest wording around this property seemed to
accomodate specifying purpose of the virtual system but I prefer
encoding this information in capabilities if possible. I'll look into
the current capabilities profile and see if it can support describing
this type of virtual system capability. I'm not intimately familiar
with that profile but as I recall it primarily deals with capabilities
related to resource allocation.
Capabilities definitely seems like the way to go since we could indicate
operations / properties not supported by these infrastructure domains at
a fine-grained level. E.g. no support for migration, suspending,
cloning, or whatever appropriate for infrastructure domains.
Jim
>>> Gareth S Bestor <bestor@xxxxxxxxxx> 09/16/06 11:46 AM >>>
Perhaps... certainly the property is there to be exploited, but I'm not
100% comfortable (yet :-) with enumerating all the differnet roles that
a
Xen domain can have into a single mutually-exclusive property value, one
that must be shared with all the other different virtualization
platform's
types... In particular, as Dan alluded to on Xen_API, it seems domu vs
domdriver vs domstub vs domfoo is more a (dynamic?) capability, or
capabilities, that a particular domain can fulfill at a particular time,
and therefore not terribly quite suited to a (static) X/Y/Z tag.
Perhaps we can still use this property if there turns out to be fairly
discrete (and static) Xen domain types that must be specified at Create
time, but even then I think we may still end up needing more dynamic
flexibility to associate particular management capabilities with
particular
domains during their lifetime.
- Gareth
Jim Fehlig
<jfehlig@xxxxxxxx
om>
To
Sent by: xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xen-cim-bounces@l
cc
ists.xensource.co
m
Subject
[Xen-cim] dom0 vs domu vs
domDriver
09/15/06 05:04 PM
While reviewing the Virtual System Profile today I was reminded of the
property SystemType in CIM_VirtualSystemSettingData. I'm wondering if
we can use this to describe the purpose of the virtual system, e.g
DriverDomain, HVMStubDomain, etc. I don't like these names since they
are not very descriptive to the casual user but you get the picture.
SystemType is a string property so no restrictions on what goes there.
See section 8.3.2 in Virtual System Profile version 0.7.2.
BTW, I'll have limited to no network access next week :-). I do plan on
participating in the weekly call next Friday.
Jim
_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim
_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim
|
|
|
| |
|
Home