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). First let's review the benefits of each. Feel free to add here. Benefits of libvirt: - Simple to set up - Uses little resources Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API Both have: - Good integration with foreman So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API. I'd like to get more benefits and/downsides of each solution so we can reach a conclusion fast.
--=-uVr3mLq9O/sV4SkLZhH6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Am Dienstag, den 12.02.2013, 00:18 +0100 schrieb Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden:
- Eating our own dogfood
For me this is one of the most important reasons to use our own tools. And as libvirt as well as ovirt (node?) provide what we need I'd go with ovirt (node?). Greetings fabian --=-uVr3mLq9O/sV4SkLZhH6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJRGgpaAAoJEC9+uOgSHVGUkpsP/R+K/E6DhqABDAYnu1NWaXdi UJy6ysmniPC50Wg5NelmoRyudbiiQ/E7y37xFskl60IE1CpPLpJB4BFkDmcSU/Ew ObfcYApM0lgPBu18MlB6yfhI0sY+7fS85cZDJxUOuj5IPa+VnatD2ZqguZcQMGlr pETcP40pTM0QozQ6KiOopx05VmTt4ZGWnYFwf3j0iyQZu11TZbmgKRG67RsVd3jb G/zUG7Tj3caHcQHJ08AhJsG/BuEprQXPdWYDOaxtToX+TQUb23fM1IiFkdfJqVgh hAUT9SUbfHaF9jUHzGUoLTle0msdUKtGxOwRsxtySoLeHExm4vj8IatWo1gdJO83 u6Bv5n7ChtnodhdvtyTISVs47VTJBB/0g2qHhnUD35Zr8RyYdvDmGC2cJK/bCfAn xC+5724NQMmjwb9U8V3Fs14AMUHJRNQTR1HLfMI9+fOguAieArrxL/k9yy6auOeQ pQ6OLZhch1lS0iM+2Jqph/lEdBV5jmbYnjjywHvAQcB2BzUQLcKU351jOjfY7Aya pRpq5wuJPbI1DpvEoTwKW8bgLqJakQwMGAz2S82Vab6uajkRTzFuFHAggOgGNalf 8gXO92Oeq2M4TR/LHWIRchDVrqQOAHiZN+M+uUaEUqtF287FxfEbm9HFy4Qr/KQf 6EQca2ThqLrOvdLyG0Vq =IvSc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-uVr3mLq9O/sV4SkLZhH6--
On 02/12/2013 01:18 AM, 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).
First let's review the benefits of each. Feel free to add here.
Benefits of libvirt: - Simple to set up - Uses little resources
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
Both have: - Good integration with foreman
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
I'd like to get more benefits and/downsides of each solution so we can reach a conclusion fast. _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
I personally find it hard to understand the base point here. how do we intend other people to use oVirt - if we are saying it's too complicated/high-maintenance to use. we aren't looking for the easiest way here, but the way we can make this project be better (on this aspect as well). if we find issues let's tackle them and solve it, working our way around would bring no added value in the long term. Moran.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:45:04AM +0200, Moran Goldboim wrote:
On 02/12/2013 01:18 AM, 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).
First let's review the benefits of each. Feel free to add here.
Benefits of libvirt: - Simple to set up - Uses little resources
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
Both have: - Good integration with foreman
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
I'd like to get more benefits and/downsides of each solution so we can reach a conclusion fast.
I personally find it hard to understand the base point here. how do we intend other people to use oVirt - if we are saying it's too complicated/high-maintenance to use. we aren't looking for the easiest way here, but the way we can make this project be better (on this aspect as well). if we find issues let's tackle them and solve it, working our way around would bring no added value in the long term.
While I agree with your point there is a slight nuance here. First of all we're in need of a solution that we can implement in a short timeframe because it's blocking other progress. For me personally I know how to configure libvirt and would have that up and running in no time. Then when we do have time we can start setting up oVirt. Something we've said is that we have two rackspace machines as well. We can set up oVirt there and convert the libvirt solution later. Of course if someone with more experience can help set it up we'd be very happy to accept help.
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2WNWFRDTHVGASARGGWRFT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/12/2013 02:05 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
While I agree with your point there is a slight nuance here. First of all we're in need of a solution that we can implement in a short timeframe because it's blocking other progress. For me personally I kno= w how to configure libvirt and would have that up and running in no time.=
Then when we do have time we can start setting up oVirt. Something we've said is that we have two rackspace machines as well. We can set u= p oVirt there and convert the libvirt solution later.
One point against using libvirt to start came from DV in the Infra meeting the other day - Daniel Veillard is a libvirt maintainer, so we can trust his point. He figured there would be some complications involved in converting VMs from libvirt to oVirt if we didn't set things up most efficiently from the start. So it sounds as if we can work around that potential issue, but it's going to be more work in the end to start with libvirt and move to oVirt.= If we want an end-state of oVirt, maybe we need to go there first. Perhaps scheduling some time for people-who-know-already to be present for the oVirt Infra team when we do the work? Can we schedule some sprints together? - Karsten --=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 ------enig2WNWFRDTHVGASARGGWRFT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFRGmsJ2ZIOBq0ODEERAjyxAJ4/+y347dBIcW0ZkgUkv3wtQGjqegCgvTqZ C/uEFJQo4ruo8St2VfjkrO0= =YHrE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2WNWFRDTHVGASARGGWRFT--
Hi, On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure on oVirt managed VMs. There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with using AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host.
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longer to set up too - everything is ready to go right now. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
--=-OXoXGhuf5hcG1AE6Rr/q Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Dienstag, den 12.02.2013, 10:57 +0100 schrieb Dave Neary:
Hi, =20 On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API =20 I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about=20 AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure on= =20 oVirt managed VMs. =20 There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate= =20 oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in=20 AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with using= =20 AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host.
Using AlterWay's management console is a charming idea. - fabian
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API. =20 Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longer= =20 to set up too - everything is ready to go right now. =20 Cheers, Dave. =20
--=-OXoXGhuf5hcG1AE6Rr/q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJRGhPeAAoJEC9+uOgSHVGUh+YP/1apVnXDSHxoBlcsuexRRPpM khff4KR/312drMd2vbxS+M9GmVIwReuAO1lMGGeoaZGTULs+Mnlo+6k2D6LlR7Si y7cuMIE1mt2Wi+5RhFDl8O/rQpU076/rR86NOORPH5pTmjG8VziPzoP1x/8bekt6 o/0kXrxu2JX72tSfWz8QpIlAZ5HRaH/rZbtUnUwK+gmxDc/cex66CJNe0HKDDQFU d0xjPkTxi/sdIxX29EdGsuOPzQ8LJgUaDuuiobDNJu0DNpu+QNdcYrqZ92k/VMbG HPj39H8kfYL902ckM5DU2fkLqn+e9U6Vbr6A4mr06pVLFdUj2DtOw0Nk64ITfLKI RkPRihh5sM6rDy+rEmiB4AeD/aeOPbZjczthMFb726z6lnzQbSwj71ZZI8JLzxC2 EL27o0IgzD2OYjRwJ0Ym3QeA2QlMyf5kZeSjB5H3d3Lva8J/b7NtQwl1iTCYB64c VCT/Gjyhw5RgzGXmo7flfPwFKPIPowHxLKr8GdNfAoDSO2zwJkMMtfTR8JVf6KZj c2PDrGihfjj/dK1ENoaAz0OxLOYPcgSMBG+EceuEza1qsX23mSiGeu/NZVXx7RUI l3h/N7MgvUpEuYhjqIN9p2ySCEMo64dijdpwDVzpmPltfpiWo83iVdXaPhIdFkv0 +z36HvgSCoAYwQqGDylr =PNg1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-OXoXGhuf5hcG1AE6Rr/q--
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:57:58AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure on oVirt managed VMs.
There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with using AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host.
Can we use the standard oVirt API to manage our VMs? User level API is a 3.2 feature[1].
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longer to set up too - everything is ready to go right now.
Agreed. [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.2_release-management#Features
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2XHCCAGFROAQKFCLJEGPO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/12/2013 01:57 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi, =20 On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API =20 I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure o= n oVirt managed VMs. =20 There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with usin= g AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host. =20 So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may=
limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of th= e API. =20 Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longe= r to set up too - everything is ready to go right now.
And doesn't stop us from putting up our own management console/oVirt manager in the future, right? It should be simple to migrate VMs from one manager to another, right? - Karsten --=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 ------enig2XHCCAGFROAQKFCLJEGPO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFRGmuA2ZIOBq0ODEERAlNnAKCsmiDCsREZCySKHGfm6Arlmea/5wCgxbsm 4H989oxQJutASHD3TTbvCcI= =yA+z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2XHCCAGFROAQKFCLJEGPO--
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten 'quaid' Wade" <kwade@redhat.com> To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:19:12 PM Subject: Re: libvirt or ovirt
On 02/12/2013 01:57 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure on oVirt managed VMs.
There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with using AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host.
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longer to set up too - everything is ready to go right now.
And doesn't stop us from putting up our own management console/oVirt manager in the future, right? It should be simple to migrate VMs from one manager to another, right? Correct. Migrating VM from one oVirt to another is quite simple.
- Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
I don't see any reason to choose libvirt over oVirt, other then physical resources, if we have them, go with oVirt. If oVirt is that hard to setup, something is wrong, and it isnt that hard to setup. So I'm not sure why this discussion exists :-) On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Kiril Nesenko <kiril@redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten 'quaid' Wade" <kwade@redhat.com> To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:19:12 PM Subject: Re: libvirt or ovirt
On 02/12/2013 01:57 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
On 02/12/2013 12:18 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
I'm in favour of using oVirt. One of the things that I liked about AlterWay's offer was the idea of running oVirt project infrastructure on oVirt managed VMs.
There are two choices inside the oVirt decision: do we want a separate oVirt manager, or are we happy having the host managed as a node in AlterWay's oVirt managed infrastructure? I personally am fine with using AlterWay's management console for the VMs and the host.
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
Using AlterWay's oVirt set-up negates the argument about it being longer to set up too - everything is ready to go right now.
And doesn't stop us from putting up our own management console/oVirt manager in the future, right? It should be simple to migrate VMs from one manager to another, right? Correct. Migrating VM from one oVirt to another is quite simple.
- Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- /Alexander Rydekull
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" <ewoud+ovirt@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:18:50 AM Subject: libvirt or ovirt
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).
First let's review the benefits of each. Feel free to add here.
Benefits of libvirt: - Simple to set up - Uses little resources
Benefits of ovirt: - Eating our own dogfood - Scales beter when we want to have multiple nodes / HA features - Has an extensive API
Both have: - Good integration with foreman
So libvirt would be a better choice if we want to set up fast, but may limit us in the longer run. Also may use fewer resources, but in the long run ovirt may allows us to build a bit of monitoring on top of the API.
I'm in favor of using oVirt, we know foreman supports integration with it, so it shouldn't be a problem to use it together. I'd go with a stable version instead of a nightly version though. It might take a bit more time, but we've waited so far, i think it's better to wait a bit longer and do it properly, and won't do a temporary solution because using libvirt is simpler. Eyal.
I'd like to get more benefits and/downsides of each solution so we can reach a conclusion fast. _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
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? 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. - 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).
Hi, I plan to reinstall OS tomorrow on Centos6.3, let me know if I have to or not asap :) Kevin 2013/2/13 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden <ewoud+ovirt@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl>
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? 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. - 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). _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- Kevin Mazière Responsable Infrastructure Alter Way – Hosting 1 rue Royal - 227 Bureaux de la Colline 92213 Saint-Cloud Cedex Tél : +33 (0)1 41 16 38 41 Mob : +33 (0)7 62 55 57 05 http://www.alterway.fr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Maziere Aubry" <kevin.maziere@alterway.fr> To: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:06:21 PM Subject: Re: libvirt or ovirt
Hi,
I plan to reinstall OS tomorrow on Centos6.3, let me know if I have to or not asap :)
re-installing alterway1 (jenkins master) should be with centos 6.3. as for alterway2 (ovirt instance), we still need to decide if we'll need fedora/rhel/centos...
Kevin
2013/2/13 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ewoud+ovirt@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl >
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? 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. - 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). _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--
Kevin Mazière Responsable Infrastructure Alter Way – Hosting 1 rue Royal - 227 Bureaux de la Colline 92213 Saint-Cloud Cedex Tél : +33 (0)1 41 16 38 41 Mob : +33 (0)7 62 55 57 05 http://www.alterway.fr _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2LCTEWHHITTKOQOTWNCGI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wr= ote: >> 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). >=20 > I think we have sufficient input (thanks for that!) to make a short > summary of the thread. >=20 > - 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 th= e > 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. >=20 > Can we conclude that we want to install oVirt on alterway02?=20 +1 > If so > there's some questions I do have: >=20 > - 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 r= un. > - 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. - Karsten --=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 ------enig2LCTEWHHITTKOQOTWNCGI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFRHA042ZIOBq0ODEERAneoAJwPu+Mzeh719OypJ/OzWTNQUdryZwCgl44p VlAhWoRiyxBurYTYM1SLoGk= =Bh4O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2LCTEWHHITTKOQOTWNCGI--
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.
participants (9)
-
Alexander Rydekull -
Dave Neary -
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden -
Eyal Edri -
Fabian Deutsch -
Karsten 'quaid' Wade -
Kevin Maziere Aubry -
Kiril Nesenko -
Moran Goldboim