On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 06.08.2013 13:00, schrieb Gleb Natapov:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
I wonder if IPMI might be such an alternative in the future, in which case we should come up with some way to fully disable pvpanic device creation. CC'ing Corey.
IPMI was considered, to complicated for what was needed.
Sorry? There's nothing wrong with going for pvpanic as a simple implementation.
Sure, why "sorry" then? :) PV has its benefits.
There have been IPMI patchsets on qemu-devel though, and SUSE will be investigating adding some IPMI support too (not sure if identical to the scope of those patchsets), whether IPMI is complicated or not. It's a standard present on physical servers, facilitating unified management of virtual and physical servers, and there's OpenIPMI as implementation.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with implementing IPMI either. Many problems that IPMI solves are much simpler to solve in virtualized environment with management software and pvpanic closes one gap between what IPMI provides and virtual machine management can do.
My point was, there may be alternative, non-PV implementations to suck such information out of a guest, IPMI being one example of a management interface that exists for physical servers. So it's not necessarily black-or-white, but choices similar to virtio vs. IDE vs. AHCI vs. SCSI.
pvpanic not meant to replace IPMI though.