On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:01:28PM -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On 02/13/2013 05:00 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:18:50AM +0100, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
In the past we've talked about running libvirt or ovirt on alterway02. Now that we have the server access we should really decide. I want to reach an agreement before the next meeting (monday 18).
I think we have sufficient input (thanks for that!) to make a short summary of the thread.
- There seems to be a very strong preference to go for oVirt. - Lack of knowledge setting up shouldn't be a problem because we should be able to get plenty of help if needed. - Resource wise we think we have enough and if not we'll find that out along the way. - Dave suggested use alterways ovirt. Possible problem there is that the user level API was only added in 3.2 which is still beta and I think Alterway is still running 3.1. This could be a project in the future since oVirt to oVirt migrations should be easy.
Can we conclude that we want to install oVirt on alterway02?
+1
If so there's some questions I do have:
- Do we still want to put it on CentOS 6? It has received limited testing, but EL6 is (IMHO) easier to maintain than Fedora.
I also like the idea of using what the oVirt userbase is most likely to run.
- Do we pick oVirt 3.1 or 3.2? Mike Burns said 3.2 would be the better choice because migration from 3.1 to 3.2 will not be easy. 3.1 would also mean running on F17, 3.2 on F18 (or maybe EL6).
If we can do oVirt 3.2 on EL6 (CentOS, in this case), that sounds like the best combination.
I like the idea of using our own software, and I like the idea of running as much as we can on a stable computing platform. We are picking from the Red Hat family of Linuxes because it's what the people here know and trust. I do hope one day to see a mix of Linuxes in the oVirt infrastructure.
And I think that's the conclusion of this thread. Thanks all. Now to to spin up a VM to try out oVirt 3.2 on CentOS 6 and see if it works.