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(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com