RE: [Xen-users] Making system templates

[Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier B.
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Making system templates
> 
> I never partition LVM "virtual device", I used different LV. 
> So there is no problem to resize any of this partitions.
> About the additionnal step, I don't really see where it is a problem.

We do the same, to the extent that we've often stripped away partition
tables even when doing a physical->virtual migration.  LVM makes
partition tables seem entirely obsolete for paravirtualized hosts--they
are an artifact of the system BIOS.  (In some cases those partitions
contained their own volume group, so a trival migration results in
logical volumes inside a volume group inside a partion table inside a
logical volume...ewww.)

I'm new to the list, but from what reading I've done I notice there are
two broad methodologies forming around virtual system management:  One
that wants to treat virtual images as identical to physical systems with
disk partitions, native installers, boot loaders, etc. while another,
simpler approach takes fuller advantage of the paravirtualized model and
Dom0 capabilities (LVM etc).  For whatever reason, most of the tools I
find (koan, virt-install) seem to fall into the former group.  We've
fallen back on rolling our own techniques to create and manage DomU
templates.

One comment to the original poster-- if your procedure to clone a system
involves copying files rather than filesystem images, you need to
additionally perform a filesystem relabeling in case you need or want
SELinux.

Jeff


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