From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenctld - a control channel multiplexing daemon Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:19:37 -0600 Message-ID: <41F8F879.9070808@codemonkey.ws> References: <1106322956.17263.26.camel@localhost> <1106698862.19729.40.camel@dyn318051bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <1106767902.25573.7.camel@localhost> <1106769687.25575.21.camel@localhost> <1106776160.19729.66.camel@dyn318051bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <1106780255.7268.9.camel@localhost> <1106783940.6916.17.camel@DYN319619.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1106783940.6916.17.camel@DYN319619.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Daniel Stekloff Cc: Anthony Liguori , xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Daniel Stekloff wrote: >Can't we add functionality in Xen to make domain id's unique? When >creating a new domain, the management tools can query the running (or >even suspended) domains and find a unique domain id to use. I think you >can tag a domains with their state. > > > Yes, I think eventually domains have to have some sort of UUID. I'm not convinced that those can't be mapped onto the current domain ids by configuration tools though. Here's a few scenarios to consider: 1) Someone suspends domain A to disk. Domain A continues to run. Without stopping the original instance of Domain A, they start up the suspended image. 2) Someone takes the suspended form of Domain A and transfers it to another machine. They start it up while Domain A is still running on another machine (creating a resource conflict). If you're using DHCP, VMware can handle this scenario gracefully btw. Are these errors? I think it can be argued either way. >I disagree. If we're to consider the larger management world, we need to >lay the groundwork for managing domains now. I think the questions >aren't easily answered, but I believe they should be. If we don't >implement everything to start, we should at least have an idea where >we're going. > > I completely agree that we need to lay a groundwork. I think large-scale domain management tools our outside the scope of the current focus. What I'd like to see is an architecture that's good enough that when these large-scale domain management tools are finally worked out they can just be plugged in without rewriting the Xen management infrastructure. I think the key to this is to keep things as simple as possible. Don't require configuration files, don't rely on any sort of internal database for persistent state. BTW, this discussion is great. I'm very interested to see what others think of the broader management picture. Regards, -- Anthony Liguori anthony@codemonkey.ws ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl