<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style style="display: none;" id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"><!--P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}--></style>
</head>
<body tabindex="0" aria-label="Message body" fpstyle="1" dir="ltr">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family: Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000; margin: 0">
I posted a script (a while back) to get oVirt running on Centos hosts.<br>
<br>
One of the items in it has to do with what "tuned" profile to use. At the time I first ran into it, this was a fatal error. It is now just a warning, so it does not prevent installing a host. But, as a warning, a lot of people are probably missing it.<br>
<br>
When using Centos 6 as the host OS, the script tries to install a "rhs-virtualization" profile. That profile is not included in Centos. I substituted the "virtual-host" profile.<br>
<br>
I believe that this may be a regression as a result of Bugzilla <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987293">
<b>987293</b></a>, where "rhs-virtualization" was substituted for "virtual-host" for RHEV + RHS. I am guessing that whatever is used as a switch to determine RHEV + RHS is also shoving Centos into that same path, which is not appropriate.<br>
<br>
My suggestion would be to write the script so that it uses "rhs-virtualization" when present, and if it is not present, then it falls back to "virtual-host". (I don't know what (if any) differences there are between the two profiles.)<br>
<br>
Should I open a new bug, make a comment on 987293, or take some other path?<br>
<br>
Ted Miller<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>