On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 03:00:06PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > 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.
PV always seems easier. It sometimes becomes a maintainance problem down the way though. > > 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. But will you want pvpanic if you have IPMI? > -- > Gleb.
