Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote:
Jim,
So you are saying that we should not use Xen_HostSystem and that it cannot be relied on? I am dealing with existing code that references the Xen_HostSystem successfully on SLES10sp2 with libvirt-cim-0.4.1 installed, which is now broken in SLES 11 with libvirt-cim-0.5.2. The SLES 10sp2 system is running tog-Pegasus where the SLES 11 system is running SFCB. I was hoping for compatibility from one release to another. Perhaps the choice of using Xen_HostSystem was a bad one?
I am trying to determine if I have found a bug in what is included in SLES 11 or if I may be missing some unidentified dependency or configurations. Thoughts?
Thanks for your insights.
Dayne
Hi Dayne, The Xen_HostSystem instance is a placeholder, it doesn't give an accurate view of the host system. If the system doesn't have a provider set that accurately represents the host, then libvirt-cim will generate an instance of Xen_HostSystem just so the association linkage works properly. libvirt-cim doesn't set any of the attributes appropriately - we basically set values for the keys and generate the instance. The idea here is that libvirt-cim represents the virtual guests and their resources, it doesn't represent the host system itself. So the instance of Xen_HostSystem doesn't conform to the System Virtualization Profile. Does your implementation need the sblim-cmpi-base package? libvirt-cim will detect whether Linux_ComputerSystem is available. If it is available, then enumerating Xen_HostSystem is disabled. If you remove sblim-cmpi-base, you'll be able to enumerate Xen_HostSystem. -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com