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. 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. 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. HTE, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
