[ Retrieve as mbox ]
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:43:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20131213194326.GA28712@phenom.dumpdata.com>
[ Reply to this message; Retrieve Raw Message; Archives: marc.info, gmane ]
> == Open == > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without any fanfare. Meaning I can do this: xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter to denote it as 'shared'. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:50:54 +0000 Message-ID: <52AEDB0E.30707@eu.citrix.com>
[ Reply to this message; Retrieve Raw Message; Archives: marc.info, gmane ]
On 12/13/2013 07:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> == Open == >> > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > any fanfare. > > Meaning I can do this: > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > to denote it as 'shared'. Is xl intended to have that level of information? The 'l' originally meant "light". -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
[ Reply to this message; Retrieve Raw Message; Archives: marc.info, gmane ]
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:43 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > == Open == > > > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > any fanfare. > > Meaning I can do this: > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > to denote it as 'shared'. Do you find that restriction to be valuable in practice? Was it ever reliable? How did it cope with /dev/mapper/FOO-BAR vs /dev/FOO/BAR and other similar aliases (/dev/cdrom etc)? We could certainly cause xl to swallow the '!' for compatibility but is the feature itself necessary? I have a feeling this is mostly implemented by checks in the block scripts rather than the toolstack itself, perhaps libxl drives them a bit differently. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20131216151041.GA14186@phenom.dumpdata.com>
[ Reply to this message; Retrieve Raw Message; Archives: marc.info, gmane ]
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:54:17AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:43 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > == Open == > > > > > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > > any fanfare. > > > > Meaning I can do this: > > > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > > to denote it as 'shared'. > > Do you find that restriction to be valuable in practice? It protects me from doing silly mistakes. > > Was it ever reliable? How did it cope with /dev/mapper/FOO-BAR > vs /dev/FOO/BAR and other similar aliases (/dev/cdrom etc)? I am not sure - but it did work across device mapper. > > We could certainly cause xl to swallow the '!' for compatibility but is > the feature itself necessary? Not for Xen 4.4. > > I have a feeling this is mostly implemented by checks in the block > scripts rather than the toolstack itself, perhaps libxl drives them a > bit differently. I can do some investigation for this. After New Year though. > > Ian. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:06:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1387461962.9925.82.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
[ Reply to this message; Retrieve Raw Message; Archives: marc.info, gmane ]
create ^ title it xl: require explicit action to share a disk between vms severity it wishlist thanks On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:43 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > == Open == > > > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > any fanfare. > > Meaning I can do this: > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > to denote it as 'shared'. > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Control reply; (Full Text)