1:38 a.m.
I don't see a good reason why we need anything but qemu-kvm.
The following commit adds the requirement - but I don't see the real need
for it:
commit a7d71ad2994aab3234371e850c617b826b3681b1
Author: Rafael Martins <rmartins(a)redhat.com>
Date: Tue Jan 3 15:26:54 2017 +0100
Force usage of qemu-kvm-rhev on centos/rhel
Lago requires qemu-kvm >= 2.1.2, these are the required
package names for each distro:
CentOS: the package is named 'qemu-kvm-ev', but it provides
'qemu-kvm-rhev'
RHEL: named 'qemu-kvm-rhev'
Fedora: 'qemu-kvm'
Signed-off-by: gbenhaim <galbh2(a)gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nadav Goldin <ngoldin(a)redhat.com>
2:08 a.m.
On 9 March 2017 at 09:38, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I don't see a good reason why we need anything but qemu-kvm.
The following commit adds the requirement - but I don't see the real need
for it:
The last time I check Lago simply does not work with out it.
Also I seem to remember that back when Lago was called STF, snapshots
did not work or qemu-kvm. But maybe that has changed by now.
Why does *-ev exist at all? Could it be consolidated with the non *-ev
packages some day?
--
Barak Korren
bkorren(a)redhat.com
RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
3:26 a.m.
On 9 March 2017 at 11:12, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Very surprising. Can't think of a good reason why.
You are welcome to try and either prove me wrong, or find the reason
(And potentially fix it...)
Alternatively open a Lago issue and we'll get to it some day...
--
Barak Korren
bkorren(a)redhat.com
RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
5:51 a.m.
Very surprising. Can't think of a good reason why.
with qemu-kvm-1.5.3-126.el7.x86_64:
libvirt: QEMU Driver error : unsupported configuration: IOThreads not
supported for this QEMU
I guess snapshots might be another problem, though never tested it.
From what I understand, new features are not always backported to the
'plain' 'qemu-kvm'. This[1] was the best explanation I could find,
though its not really complete.
[1] https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2015-October/004717.html
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2017 at 11:12, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
> Very surprising. Can't think of a good reason why.
>>
> You are welcome to try and either prove me wrong, or find the reason
> (And potentially fix it...)
> Alternatively open a Lago issue and we'll get to it some day...
>
> --
> Barak Korren
> bkorren(a)redhat.com
> RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
> https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
> _______________________________________________
> lago-devel mailing list
> lago-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
6:30 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Can you send a patch to remove it or open an issue?
If we can drop the -ev requirement it will ease the demo tool installation
as well.
--
Eyal Edri
Associate Manager
RHV DevOps
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
7:03 a.m.
On Mar 16, 2017 1:40 PM, "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Can you send a patch to remove it or open an issue?
If we can drop the -ev requirement it will ease the demo tool installation
as well.
B
Sure, but is that the only -ev feature we use?
Y.
--
Eyal Edri
Associate Manager
RHV DevOps
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018 <+972%209-769-2018>
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
7:37 a.m.
We can build Lago unstable w/o it and run OST on the manual job to verify
none of the tests use it.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
--
Eyal Edri
Associate Manager
RHV DevOps
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
8 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The tests are not the issue - it's the L0 qemu-kvm - the way Lago itself
uses qemu-kvm.
I'd like to ensure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot by not using it - I
assume not.
I'll see if I can get this data from libvirt's 'capabilities', if not,
I'll
drop it and we'll see how it goes.
It's not like it's a huge performance win right now.
Y.
6:56 a.m.
From what I understand: qemu-kvm exists for backward compatibility,
new features will usually hit qemu-kvm-ev.
If my understanding is correct(couldn't find any official doc to
confirm), I think we should stick with 'qemu-kvm-ev'. Even if we don't
hit a issue now, we could hit something else in the future. I don't
think it complicates the installation, its just another
repository/channel, like all others which we require. It is covered
pretty well both upstream and downstream.
Another option is to add 'recommends' for 'qemu-kvm-ev' in the spec
file, and require 'qemu-kvm'. Code wise we could detect the installed
QEMU version, and toggle the needed features(which for now might only
be iothreads).
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
2937
days inactive
2947
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Barak Korren -
Eyal Edri -
Nadav Goldin -
Yaniv Kaul