[lago-devel] Why do we need qemu-kvm-*ev* ?

[Yaniv Kaul]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:

> We can build Lago unstable w/o it and run OST on the manual job to verify
> none of the tests use it.
>

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.


> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2017 1:40 PM, "Eyal Edri" <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:51 PM Nadav Goldin <ngoldin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, my fault for adding iothreads. We could remove them (they don't add
>>> more than a small performance improvement, hardly noticeable most likely)
>>> if it makes deployment harder.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Y.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On 9 March 2017 at 11:12, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at 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 at redhat.com
>>>> > RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
>>>> > https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > lago-devel mailing list
>>>> > lago-devel at ovirt.org
>>>> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lago-devel mailing list
>>> lago-devel at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/lago-devel/attachments/20170316/fb442aec/attachment.html>