Re: libvirt or ovirt

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.