On 02/08/2012 01:43 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote: > Hello all, > > The following feature page describes the engine adjustments needed for new SPICE features. > > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/SPICERelatedFeatures

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans de Goede"<hdegoede(a)redhat.com> > To: dlaor(a)redhat.com > Cc: "Oved Ourfalli"<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 4:36:06 PM > Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [Engine-devel] SPICE related features > > Hi all, > > Dor, thanks for the forward. > > On 02/08/2012 12:49 PM, Dor Laor wrote: >> On 02/08/2012 01:43 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> The following feature page describes the engine adjustments needed >>> for new SPICE features. >>> >>> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/SPICERelatedFeatures > > Al in all this looks good, some remarks: > > * WRT multi monitor support for RHEL, the latest RHEL > xorg-x11-drv-qxl and > spice-vdagent packages do support multi monitor support using > multiple > cards in Xinerama mode. We are waiting for a RHEL-6 z-stream > update to > fix an x11-xorg-server-Xorg bug which atm makes the mouse unusable > in this > mode wants this lands, multi-monitor support this way should be > available > for RHEL-6.2 (and later) guests. The same holds true for Fedora > guests, > although I don't expect the necessary Xorg changes to be available > for > versions older then Fedora 17. The driving multiple monitors from > a single > qxl device support OTOH is still a long time away, likely 6 months > or so. > The idea behind this support is to have it on a single PCI card, and not on multiple ones.

On 02/08/2012 04:36 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi all, > > Dor, thanks for the forward. > > On 02/08/2012 12:49 PM, Dor Laor wrote: >> On 02/08/2012 01:43 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> The following feature page describes the engine adjustments needed >>> for new SPICE features. >>> >>> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/SPICERelatedFeatures > > Al in all this looks good, some remarks: > > * WRT multi monitor support for RHEL, the latest RHEL xorg-x11-drv-qxl and > spice-vdagent packages do support multi monitor support using multiple > cards in Xinerama mode. We are waiting for a RHEL-6 z-stream update to > fix an x11-xorg-server-Xorg bug which atm makes the mouse unusable in this > mode wants this lands, multi-monitor support this way should be available > for RHEL-6.2 (and later) guests. The same holds true for Fedora guests, > although I don't expect the necessary Xorg changes to be available for > versions older then Fedora 17. The driving multiple monitors from a single > qxl device support OTOH is still a long time away, likely 6 months or so. so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if they want single head or multiple heads when they choose multi monitor?

this will cause their (single) head to spin...

any better UX we can suggest users?

> * WRT the native USB support, the wiki page says: > "If the cluster level is 3.1 (which supports native USB support), but the > client only has non-native USB support (old client), then we will use the > old client. This means that we'll have to keep supporting the non-native > USB > support, side-by-side with the native one." > > Note that the new usb-support requires starting the guest with a number of > extra emulated devices. These will just sit around and do nothing if > unused, > so I don't really expect any issues with this, but this still is something > to be aware of. OTOH the old usb-support requires the installation of extra > software inside the guest, if this is not installed falling back to the old > client will not help wrt usb support. true, I think we need to offer at least a single version that offers backward compatibility before we can deprecate it.

On 02/09/2012 10:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:

>> so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if they want >> single head or multiple heads when they choose multi monitor? > > We could ask the user, but I don't think that that is a good idea. > >> this will cause their (single) head to spin... > > With which you seem to agree :) > >> any better UX we can suggest users? > > Yes, no UI at all, the current solution using multiple single monitor > pci cards means using Xinerama, which disables Xrandr, and thus allows > no dynamic adjustment of the monitor settings of the guest, instead > an xorg.conf file must be written (the linux agent can generate one > based on the current client monitor info) and Xorg needs to be restarted. > > This is the result of the multiple pci cards which each 1 monitor model > we've been using for windows guests being a poor match for Linux guests. > > So we are working on adding support to drive multiple monitors from a > single qxl pci device. This requires changes on both the host and > guest side, but if both sides support it this configuration is much > better, so IMHO ovirt should just automatically enable it > if both the host (the cluster) and the guest support it. > > On the guest side, this is the current status: > > RHEL <= 6.1 no multi monitor support > RHEL 6.2(*) - 6.? multi monitor support using Xinerama (so 1 > monitor/card, multiple cards) > RHEL >= 6.? multi monitor support using a single card with multiple outputs > > Just like when exactly the new multi mon support will be available > for guests, it is a similar question mark for when it will be available for > the host. this is the ovirt mailing list, so upstream versions are more relevant here. in any case, I have the same issue with backward compatibilty. say you fix this in fedora 17. user started a guest VM when host was fedora 16. admin upgraded host and changed cluster level to utilize new features. suddenly on next boot guest will move from 4 heads to single head? I'm guessing it will break user configuration. i.e., user should be able to choose to move to utilize the new mode?

On 02/09/2012 11:05 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/09/2012 09:33 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 02/09/2012 10:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if they want >>>> single head or multiple heads when they choose multi monitor? >>> >>> We could ask the user, but I don't think that that is a good idea. >>> >>>> this will cause their (single) head to spin... >>> >>> With which you seem to agree :) >>> >>>> any better UX we can suggest users? >>> >>> Yes, no UI at all, the current solution using multiple single monitor >>> pci cards means using Xinerama, which disables Xrandr, and thus allows >>> no dynamic adjustment of the monitor settings of the guest, instead >>> an xorg.conf file must be written (the linux agent can generate one >>> based on the current client monitor info) and Xorg needs to be >>> restarted. >>> >>> This is the result of the multiple pci cards which each 1 monitor model >>> we've been using for windows guests being a poor match for Linux guests. >>> >>> So we are working on adding support to drive multiple monitors from a >>> single qxl pci device. This requires changes on both the host and >>> guest side, but if both sides support it this configuration is much >>> better, so IMHO ovirt should just automatically enable it >>> if both the host (the cluster) and the guest support it. >>> >>> On the guest side, this is the current status: >>> >>> RHEL <= 6.1 no multi monitor support >>> RHEL 6.2(*) - 6.? multi monitor support using Xinerama (so 1 >>> monitor/card, multiple cards) >>> RHEL >= 6.? multi monitor support using a single card with multiple >>> outputs >>> >>> Just like when exactly the new multi mon support will be available >>> for guests, it is a similar question mark for when it will be >>> available for >>> the host. >> >> this is the ovirt mailing list, so upstream versions are more relevant >> here. >> in any case, I have the same issue with backward compatibilty. >> say you fix this in fedora 17. >> user started a guest VM when host was fedora 16. >> admin upgraded host and changed cluster level to utilize new features. >> suddenly on next boot guest will move from 4 heads to single head? I'm >> guessing it will break user configuration. >> i.e., user should be able to choose to move to utilize the new mode? > > I see this as something which gets decided at vm creation time, and then > stored in the vm config. So if the vm gets created with a guest OS which > does not support multiple monitors per qxl device, or when the cluster does > not support it, it uses the old setup with 1 card / monitor. Even if the > guest OS or the cluster gets upgraded later. so instead of letting user change this, we'd force this at vm creation time? I'm not sure this is "friendlier".

______________________________________ _________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Dor Laor" <dlaor(a)redhat.com&gt; To: spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Cc: "David Jaša" <djasa(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:52:46 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Spice-devel] SPICE related features On 02/09/2012 02:50 PM, David Jaša wrote: > Itamar Heim píše v Čt 09. 02. 2012 v 11:07 +0200: >> On 02/09/2012 11:05 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 02/09/2012 09:33 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>> On 02/09/2012 10:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if they >>>>>> want >>>>>> single head or multiple heads when they choose multi monitor? >>>>> >>>>> We could ask the user, but I don't think that that is a good >>>>> idea. >>>>> >>>>>> this will cause their (single) head to spin... >>>>> >>>>> With which you seem to agree :) >>>>> >>>>>> any better UX we can suggest users? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, no UI at all, the current solution using multiple single >>>>> monitor >>>>> pci cards means using Xinerama, which disables Xrandr, and thus >>>>> allows >>>>> no dynamic adjustment of the monitor settings of the guest, >>>>> instead >>>>> an xorg.conf file must be written (the linux agent can generate >>>>> one >>>>> based on the current client monitor info) and Xorg needs to be >>>>> restarted. >>>>> >>>>> This is the result of the multiple pci cards which each 1 >>>>> monitor model >>>>> we've been using for windows guests being a poor match for >>>>> Linux guests. >>>>> >>>>> So we are working on adding support to drive multiple monitors >>>>> from a >>>>> single qxl pci device. This requires changes on both the host >>>>> and >>>>> guest side, but if both sides support it this configuration is >>>>> much >>>>> better, so IMHO ovirt should just automatically enable it >>>>> if both the host (the cluster) and the guest support it. >>>>> >>>>> On the guest side, this is the current status: >>>>> >>>>> RHEL<= 6.1 no multi monitor support >>>>> RHEL 6.2(*) - 6.? multi monitor support using Xinerama (so 1 >>>>> monitor/card, multiple cards) >>>>> RHEL>= 6.? multi monitor support using a single card with >>>>> multiple >>>>> outputs >>>>> >>>>> Just like when exactly the new multi mon support will be >>>>> available >>>>> for guests, it is a similar question mark for when it will be >>>>> available for >>>>> the host. >>>> >>>> this is the ovirt mailing list, so upstream versions are more >>>> relevant >>>> here. >>>> in any case, I have the same issue with backward compatibilty. >>>> say you fix this in fedora 17. >>>> user started a guest VM when host was fedora 16. >>>> admin upgraded host and changed cluster level to utilize new >>>> features. >>>> suddenly on next boot guest will move from 4 heads to single >>>> head? I'm >>>> guessing it will break user configuration. >>>> i.e., user should be able to choose to move to utilize the new >>>> mode? >>> >>> I see this as something which gets decided at vm creation time, >>> and then >>> stored in the vm config. So if the vm gets created with a guest >>> OS which >>> does not support multiple monitors per qxl device, or when the >>> cluster does >>> not support it, it uses the old setup with 1 card / monitor. Even >>> if the >>> guest OS or the cluster gets upgraded later. >> >> so instead of letting user change this, we'd force this at vm >> creation >> time? I'm not sure this is "friendlier". > > I think that some history-watching logic& one UI bit could be the > way > to go. The UI bit would be yet another select button that would let > user > choose what graphic layout ("all monitors on single graphic card", > "one > graphic card per monitor (legacy)"). The logic would be like this: > * pre-existing guest that now supports new layout in 3.1 > cluster > * The guest uses 1 monitor, is swithed to 2+ --> > new > * The guest uses 2+ monitor layout --> old, big fat > warning when changing to the new that user should > wipe > xinerama configuration in the guest > * pre-existing guest in old or mixed cluster: > * guest uses 2+ monitors --> old > * guest is newly configured for 2+ monitors --> > show > warning that user either has co configure xinerama > or > use newer cluster --> old > * new guest in new cluster: > * --> new > * if user switches to old, show warning > * old guest in any type of cluster > * --> old > > This kind of behavior should provide sensible defaults, all valid > choices in all possible scenarios and it should not interfere too > much > when admin chooses to do anything. In short, the same rule of the thumb applies to all of our virtual hardware: - new vm creation should use the greatest and latest virtual hardware version (if the current cluster allows it) - For existing VMs we should preserve their current virtual hardware set (-M flag in qemu machine type vocabulary, cluster terminology for ovirt). - Changing the virtual hardware by either changing existing devices, adding devices, changing pci slots, or changing the virtual hardware revision should done only by user consent. The later may have the exception of smart offline v2v tool. Dor

> > David > >> ______________________________________ >> _________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Alon Levy" <alevy(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "David Jaša" <djasa(a)redhat.com&gt;, spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, dlaor(a)redhat.com, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:51:47 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Spice-devel] SPICE related features On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:25:37AM -0500, Oved Ourfalli wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dor Laor" <dlaor(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > Cc: "David Jaša" <djasa(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfalli" > > <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:52:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Spice-devel] SPICE related features > > > > On 02/09/2012 02:50 PM, David Jaša wrote: > > > Itamar Heim píše v Čt 09. 02. 2012 v 11:07 +0200: > > >> On 02/09/2012 11:05 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On 02/09/2012 09:33 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: > > >>>> On 02/09/2012 10:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > >>> > > >>> <snip> > > >>> > > >>>>>> so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if > > >>>>>> they > > >>>>>> want > > >>>>>> single head or multiple heads when they choose multi > > >>>>>> monitor? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We could ask the user, but I don't think that that is a > > >>>>> good > > >>>>> idea. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> this will cause their (single) head to spin... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> With which you seem to agree :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> any better UX we can suggest users? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes, no UI at all, the current solution using multiple > > >>>>> single > > >>>>> monitor > > >>>>> pci cards means using Xinerama, which disables Xrandr, and > > >>>>> thus > > >>>>> allows > > >>>>> no dynamic adjustment of the monitor settings of the guest, > > >>>>> instead > > >>>>> an xorg.conf file must be written (the linux agent can > > >>>>> generate > > >>>>> one > > >>>>> based on the current client monitor info) and Xorg needs to > > >>>>> be > > >>>>> restarted. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This is the result of the multiple pci cards which each 1 > > >>>>> monitor model > > >>>>> we've been using for windows guests being a poor match for > > >>>>> Linux guests. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So we are working on adding support to drive multiple > > >>>>> monitors > > >>>>> from a > > >>>>> single qxl pci device. This requires changes on both the > > >>>>> host > > >>>>> and > > >>>>> guest side, but if both sides support it this configuration > > >>>>> is > > >>>>> much > > >>>>> better, so IMHO ovirt should just automatically enable it > > >>>>> if both the host (the cluster) and the guest support it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On the guest side, this is the current status: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> RHEL<= 6.1 no multi monitor support > > >>>>> RHEL 6.2(*) - 6.? multi monitor support using Xinerama (so > > >>>>> 1 > > >>>>> monitor/card, multiple cards) > > >>>>> RHEL>= 6.? multi monitor support using a single card with > > >>>>> multiple > > >>>>> outputs > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Just like when exactly the new multi mon support will be > > >>>>> available > > >>>>> for guests, it is a similar question mark for when it will > > >>>>> be > > >>>>> available for > > >>>>> the host. > > >>>> > > >>>> this is the ovirt mailing list, so upstream versions are > > >>>> more > > >>>> relevant > > >>>> here. > > >>>> in any case, I have the same issue with backward > > >>>> compatibilty. > > >>>> say you fix this in fedora 17. > > >>>> user started a guest VM when host was fedora 16. > > >>>> admin upgraded host and changed cluster level to utilize new > > >>>> features. > > >>>> suddenly on next boot guest will move from 4 heads to single > > >>>> head? I'm > > >>>> guessing it will break user configuration. > > >>>> i.e., user should be able to choose to move to utilize the > > >>>> new > > >>>> mode? > > >>> > > >>> I see this as something which gets decided at vm creation > > >>> time, > > >>> and then > > >>> stored in the vm config. So if the vm gets created with a > > >>> guest > > >>> OS which > > >>> does not support multiple monitors per qxl device, or when > > >>> the > > >>> cluster does > > >>> not support it, it uses the old setup with 1 card / monitor. > > >>> Even > > >>> if the > > >>> guest OS or the cluster gets upgraded later. > > >> > > >> so instead of letting user change this, we'd force this at vm > > >> creation > > >> time? I'm not sure this is "friendlier". > > > > > > I think that some history-watching logic& one UI bit could be > > > the > > > way > > > to go. The UI bit would be yet another select button that would > > > let > > > user > > > choose what graphic layout ("all monitors on single graphic > > > card", > > > "one > > > graphic card per monitor (legacy)"). The logic would be like > > > this: > > > * pre-existing guest that now supports new layout in 3.1 > > > cluster > > > * The guest uses 1 monitor, is swithed to 2+ --> > > > new > > > * The guest uses 2+ monitor layout --> old, big > > > fat > > > warning when changing to the new that user > > > should > > > wipe > > > xinerama configuration in the guest > > > * pre-existing guest in old or mixed cluster: > > > * guest uses 2+ monitors --> old > > > * guest is newly configured for 2+ monitors --> > > > show > > > warning that user either has co configure > > > xinerama > > > or > > > use newer cluster --> old > > > * new guest in new cluster: > > > * --> new > > > * if user switches to old, show warning > > > * old guest in any type of cluster > > > * --> old > > > > > > This kind of behavior should provide sensible defaults, all > > > valid > > > choices in all possible scenarios and it should not interfere > > > too > > > much > > > when admin chooses to do anything. > > > > In short, the same rule of the thumb applies to all of our > > virtual > > hardware: > > - new vm creation should use the greatest and latest virtual > > hardware > > version (if the current cluster allows it) > > - For existing VMs we should preserve their current virtual > > hardware > > set (-M flag in qemu machine type vocabulary, cluster > > terminology > > for ovirt). > > - Changing the virtual hardware by either changing existing > > devices, > > adding devices, changing pci slots, or changing the virtual > > hardware revision should done only by user consent. > > The later may have the exception of smart offline v2v tool. > > > > Dor > > > > I agree. > What I don't understand (not a question for you Dor, but more for > the SPICE guys), though, is the requirement to support Xinerama > configuration on the guest. > Today the ovirt-engine doesn't support using more than one monitor > on Linux guests. Why? With Xinerama support we have a solution for this. That's the reason for asking for more the one monitor support for linux guests, no?

> If someone did something with is not the standard, somewhere behind > the scenes, the engine cannot be aware of that, thus it cannot > take it into consideration. > Moreover, don't change the device layout when we add support, as > the guest had one display device with one head, and it will remain > that way, unless he chooses to work with multiple monitors through > the engine management system. > > > > > > > David > > > > > >> ______________________________________ > > >> _________ > > >> Engine-devel mailing list > > >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alon Levy" <alevy(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "David Jaša" <djasa(a)redhat.com&gt;, spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, dlaor(a)redhat.com, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:51:47 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Spice-devel] SPICE related features > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:25:37AM -0500, Oved Ourfalli wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dor Laor" <dlaor(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Cc: "David Jaša" <djasa(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfalli" > > > <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:52:46 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Spice-devel] SPICE related features > > > > > > On 02/09/2012 02:50 PM, David Jaša wrote: > > > > Itamar Heim píše v Čt 09. 02. 2012 v 11:07 +0200: > > > >> On 02/09/2012 11:05 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> On 02/09/2012 09:33 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: > > > >>>> On 02/09/2012 10:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> <snip> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> so this means we need to ask the user for linux guests if > > > >>>>>> they > > > >>>>>> want > > > >>>>>> single head or multiple heads when they choose multi > > > >>>>>> monitor? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We could ask the user, but I don't think that that is a > > > >>>>> good > > > >>>>> idea. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> this will cause their (single) head to spin... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> With which you seem to agree :) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> any better UX we can suggest users? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Yes, no UI at all, the current solution using multiple > > > >>>>> single > > > >>>>> monitor > > > >>>>> pci cards means using Xinerama, which disables Xrandr, and > > > >>>>> thus > > > >>>>> allows > > > >>>>> no dynamic adjustment of the monitor settings of the guest, > > > >>>>> instead > > > >>>>> an xorg.conf file must be written (the linux agent can > > > >>>>> generate > > > >>>>> one > > > >>>>> based on the current client monitor info) and Xorg needs to > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>> restarted. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> This is the result of the multiple pci cards which each 1 > > > >>>>> monitor model > > > >>>>> we've been using for windows guests being a poor match for > > > >>>>> Linux guests. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So we are working on adding support to drive multiple > > > >>>>> monitors > > > >>>>> from a > > > >>>>> single qxl pci device. This requires changes on both the > > > >>>>> host > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>> guest side, but if both sides support it this configuration > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>>> much > > > >>>>> better, so IMHO ovirt should just automatically enable it > > > >>>>> if both the host (the cluster) and the guest support it. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On the guest side, this is the current status: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> RHEL<= 6.1 no multi monitor support > > > >>>>> RHEL 6.2(*) - 6.? multi monitor support using Xinerama (so > > > >>>>> 1 > > > >>>>> monitor/card, multiple cards) > > > >>>>> RHEL>= 6.? multi monitor support using a single card with > > > >>>>> multiple > > > >>>>> outputs > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Just like when exactly the new multi mon support will be > > > >>>>> available > > > >>>>> for guests, it is a similar question mark for when it will > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>> available for > > > >>>>> the host. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> this is the ovirt mailing list, so upstream versions are > > > >>>> more > > > >>>> relevant > > > >>>> here. > > > >>>> in any case, I have the same issue with backward > > > >>>> compatibilty. > > > >>>> say you fix this in fedora 17. > > > >>>> user started a guest VM when host was fedora 16. > > > >>>> admin upgraded host and changed cluster level to utilize new > > > >>>> features. > > > >>>> suddenly on next boot guest will move from 4 heads to single > > > >>>> head? I'm > > > >>>> guessing it will break user configuration. > > > >>>> i.e., user should be able to choose to move to utilize the > > > >>>> new > > > >>>> mode? > > > >>> > > > >>> I see this as something which gets decided at vm creation > > > >>> time, > > > >>> and then > > > >>> stored in the vm config. So if the vm gets created with a > > > >>> guest > > > >>> OS which > > > >>> does not support multiple monitors per qxl device, or when > > > >>> the > > > >>> cluster does > > > >>> not support it, it uses the old setup with 1 card / monitor. > > > >>> Even > > > >>> if the > > > >>> guest OS or the cluster gets upgraded later. > > > >> > > > >> so instead of letting user change this, we'd force this at vm > > > >> creation > > > >> time? I'm not sure this is "friendlier". > > > > > > > > I think that some history-watching logic& one UI bit could be > > > > the > > > > way > > > > to go. The UI bit would be yet another select button that would > > > > let > > > > user > > > > choose what graphic layout ("all monitors on single graphic > > > > card", > > > > "one > > > > graphic card per monitor (legacy)"). The logic would be like > > > > this: > > > > * pre-existing guest that now supports new layout in 3.1 > > > > cluster > > > > * The guest uses 1 monitor, is swithed to 2+ --> > > > > new > > > > * The guest uses 2+ monitor layout --> old, big > > > > fat > > > > warning when changing to the new that user > > > > should > > > > wipe > > > > xinerama configuration in the guest > > > > * pre-existing guest in old or mixed cluster: > > > > * guest uses 2+ monitors --> old > > > > * guest is newly configured for 2+ monitors --> > > > > show > > > > warning that user either has co configure > > > > xinerama > > > > or > > > > use newer cluster --> old > > > > * new guest in new cluster: > > > > * --> new > > > > * if user switches to old, show warning > > > > * old guest in any type of cluster > > > > * --> old > > > > > > > > This kind of behavior should provide sensible defaults, all > > > > valid > > > > choices in all possible scenarios and it should not interfere > > > > too > > > > much > > > > when admin chooses to do anything. > > > > > > In short, the same rule of the thumb applies to all of our > > > virtual > > > hardware: > > > - new vm creation should use the greatest and latest virtual > > > hardware > > > version (if the current cluster allows it) > > > - For existing VMs we should preserve their current virtual > > > hardware > > > set (-M flag in qemu machine type vocabulary, cluster > > > terminology > > > for ovirt). > > > - Changing the virtual hardware by either changing existing > > > devices, > > > adding devices, changing pci slots, or changing the virtual > > > hardware revision should done only by user consent. > > > The later may have the exception of smart offline v2v tool. > > > > > > Dor > > > > > > > I agree. > > What I don't understand (not a question for you Dor, but more for > > the SPICE guys), though, is the requirement to support Xinerama > > configuration on the guest. > > Today the ovirt-engine doesn't support using more than one monitor > > on Linux guests. > > Why? With Xinerama support we have a solution for this. That's the > reason for asking for more the one monitor support for linux guests, > no? > AFAIU there was no requirement for adding Xinerama support, but only supporting using multiple heads on a single device. If this is a requirement we should know about it, and design it. Either way, as both features are new we have no backward compatibility issue here.

> > If someone did something with is not the standard, somewhere behind > > the scenes, the engine cannot be aware of that, thus it cannot > > take it into consideration. > > Moreover, don't change the device layout when we add support, as > > the guest had one display device with one head, and it will remain > > that way, unless he chooses to work with multiple monitors through > > the engine management system. > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > >> ______________________________________ > > > >> _________ > > > >> Engine-devel mailing list > > > >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Engine-devel mailing list > > > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Spice-devel mailing list > > Spice-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel