Re: [Users] R: tuned profile for Centos hosts -- new Bugzilla orRegression

Hi guys, As far as I know, tuned is not available in centos. So we first need to verify tuned exists.

Once available, we'll be able to handle the relevant profiles for hypervisors. Can anyone confirm tuned availability on centos?

Hi Ted, I'm interested to on this tuned rhs-virtualization profile... where I can find it? And what macro differences has against virtual-host profile? Best regards a Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 22:09:44 +0000 From: Ted Miller <tmiller(a)hcjb.org&gt; To: oVirt Mailing List <users(a)ovirt.org&gt; Subject: [Users] tuned profile for Centos hosts -- new Bugzilla or Regression Message-ID: <a584ee1c0d4e40a2ae295cf23111628b(a)DM2PR05MB320.namprd05.prod.outlook.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I posted a script (a while back) to get oVirt running on Centos hosts. One of the items in it has to do with what "tuned" profile to use. At the time I first ran into it, this was a fatal error. It is now just a warning, so it does not prevent installing a host. But, as a warning, a lot of people are probably missing it. When using Centos 6 as the host OS, the script tries to install a "rhs-virtualization" profile. That profile is not included in Centos. I substituted the "virtual-host" profile. I believe that this may be a regression as a result of Bugzilla 987293<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987293>;, where "rhs-virtualization" was substituted for "virtual-host" for RHEV + RHS. I am guessing that whatever is used as a switch to determine RHEV + RHS is also shoving Centos into that same path, which is not appropriate. My suggestion would be to write the script so that it uses "rhs-virtualization" when present, and if it is not present, then it falls back to "virtual-host". (I don't know what (if any) differences there are between the two profiles.) Should I open a new bug, make a comment on 987293, or take some other path? Ted Miller Inviato da Tablet Samsung