<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/08/2013 01:00 AM, hackxay wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:38f27188.46c5.142364bf261.Coremail.hackxay@163.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"> <!--@import url(scrollbar.css); --></style>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style> body{FONT-SIZE:12pt; FONT-FAMILY:宋体,serif;} </style>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.16384">
<base target="_blank">
<div><font size="2" face="微软雅黑">Hi.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="微软雅黑">When we add a new host,engine can
installed the vdsm on the host and vdsm can call the interface
of libvirt.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="微软雅黑">The libvirt support VirtualBox.But
the VDSM uses qemu-kvm.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="微软雅黑">I want to let vdsm can use libvirt
to call the interface of VitualBox.</font><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree that it is unfortunate that we have limited the power of
libvirt in terms of the number of backends it can manage when
integrating it into oVirt.<b> </b>Extending to VirtualBox would be
an interesting project, but I'm not sure how valuable it would be.
As a long-time user of VirtualBox I found it to be slower than KVM.
I guess it could allow people to use non-Linux Nodes. Like Dan said,
a lot of work there so the payoff would have to be big enough to
justify it.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, I think it would have far greater impact in terms
of number of use cases/users if we expanded VDSM to manage VMware
ESX. VMware is still arguably the market leader for virtualization.
At the very least, this would then provide a migration path for
anybody wanting to move away from VMware to oVirt (or, perhaps,
visa-versa if we don't do a good enough job with oVirt ;). Since the
Nodes would effectively still be restricted to Linux the task should
be easier than e.g. supporting a Node consisting of
Windows+VirtualBox. As with VirtualBox, there's no SPICE capability
for VMware, so in addition to the VDSM work the User Portal should
be extended to support e.g. VMware Horizon View Client.<br>
<br>
-Bob<br>
<br>
P.S. If we *did* support VirtualBox, the User Portal should be
extended to broker VNC connections since that's one way to connect
to a console with VBox. That wouldn't be a bad project in itself,
and would have value even without VirtualBox.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>