Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: 0/10: Merge xenfb & xenconsoled into qemu-dm

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/8/07 16:34, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> My own feeling is that the xenfb merge is very sensible, but I don't see
>> much of a win from merging xenconsoled, and the downside is that you then
>> need a qemu-dm instance for every PV guest. I think that requiring qemu-dm
>> for more 'featureful' PV guests -- framebuffer, USB, etc -- is well and
>> good, but someone who is running more minimal domU configurations --
>> console, net, block -- isn't going to want or welcome the rather unnecessary
>> per-domU overhead of qemu-dm.
> 
> Yep, I can see that would be useful for some folks working in constrained
> environments. Of course they probably don't want the XenD overhead either,
> but that's a can of worms I won't get into right now ;-)

At least the xend overhead is largely one-off rather than per-domain.

> Thinking about this, I think I can easily re-work the last two patches so
> that xenconsoled will continue to process the guest consoles, if-and-only-if
> the guest doesn't have a QEMU instance already doing it. That would give us
> choice between both deployment scenarios per-guest.

That seems fair. The guest-console-over-vnc scenario is a compelling
argument for supporting console-in-qemu as an option.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel