On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:41:19PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I don't think that's much of an argument. Plenty of things can be considered fundamental. My kernel version certainly is, so why isn't libvirt letting me upgrade that? What about my firewall? Why isn't libvirt configuring my iSCSI target for me?
The kernel version isn't fundamental to the task of provisioning and configuring a guest VM. When deploying a VM there is no general requirement to upgrade the host kernel. When deploying a VM there very much is a requirement to configure physical resources in the host such as storage, and networking.
So it sounds like you think libvirt /should/ be going out and configuring shared storage. What about VLAN set up on my router hardware? That too, right?
The existance of many different impls is exactly the reason for libvirt to have this capability. Libvirt is providing a consistent mgmt API
No - it's exactly the reason for SOME common API. No-one is arguing that a common API for host networking is a bad idea. "There isn't an API, and it's sometimes needed for management" is not an argument for it be part of libvirt's scope. Again, what makes libvirt a good place for this management? I don't accept "because it's there" as a reasonable justification... regards, john