[ovirt-users] Out of the box experience on Fedora - was: Re: [QE][ACTION REQUIRED] oVirt 3.5.1 RC status - postponed

[Sandro Bonazzola]

Il 25/11/2014 08:37, Francesco Romani ha scritto:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
>> To: Users at ovirt.org, devel at ovirt.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:07:14 AM
>> Subject: [ovirt-users] [QE][ACTION REQUIRED] oVirt 3.5.1 RC status -	postponed
> 
> [...]
>> The following bugs have been keyworded as Regression and not marked as
>> blockers:
>> 1165336	virt		ASSIGNED	FC20 qemu needs kvmclock bugfixes
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I'd like to elaborate a bit more here for the sake of the openness.
> TL;DR version
> 
> - no actual regression in oVirt, meaning 'we applied a patch and we broke something'.
> - "fix" is underway - to propose the relevant patches to Fedora QEMU package
> 
> Long(ish) version
> 
> 1 some time ago we adhered to QEMU/KVM clock settings recommendations (see
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053846)
> 2 these recommendations are *still* valid as today - I just checked with upstream developers
>   while investigating bz1165336
> 3 these recommendations may have surprising effects like disabling HPET clock
> 4 on some old(ish) upstream QEMUs, disabling HPET may hurt migrations - hence bz1165336
> 5 only *very* recent QEMUs (2.2.0rc0!) have the fixes, which are about improving
>   kvm clock, while HPET clock is still not recommended (see #2 above)
> 6 if the qemu-kvm-rhev is used (available in the oVirt repo), the experience is significantly better
> 
> 
> However, the reporter *has* a very valid point, which motivated me to write me this mail:
> a. F20 is a supported platform
> b. I *guess* Fedora is the platform of choice to try out QEMU and to initially play with it
> c. out-of-the box experience with oVirt and Fedora is cumbersome, many steps and tunings are needed.
>    This may annoy users - without a valid reason!

Can you detail the "many steps and tunings are needed"?
I just install Fedora 20 and oVirt 3.5 snapshot and it usually just works...


> d. hence there is an unneededly high first step to try out oVirt, and this is hurting the project
> 
> Now, I'd like to raise this question
> 
> * it is true that Fedora is the platform of choice to try out and evaluate oVirt?
> * if so, is the experience on Fedora streamlined enough or could it made simple, hence we could
>   have a better vector to spread oVirt?
> * what we could do, as oVirt project, to improve the above?
> 
> Feedback welcome
> 


-- 
Sandro Bonazzola
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com