[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: libvirt vs. in-qemu management
From: |
Alexander Graf |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: libvirt vs. in-qemu management |
Date: |
Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) |
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 03:28 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Note things like network setup are a bottomless pit. Pretty soon you
>>> need to setup vlans and bonding etc. If a user needs one of these and
>>> qemud doesn't provide it, then qemud becomes useless to them. But the
>>> same problem applies to libvirt.
>>>
>> If they are a bottomless pit then they are a bottomless pit. There's
>> nothing we can do about it. This pit needs to be dug either way, whether
>> it's in libvirt or in qemud.
>>
>
> Agreed. The only difference is who's doing the digging.
>
> One way to avoid it is to have a rich plugin API so if some needs some
> to, say, set up traffic control on the interface, they can write a
> plugin to do that.
Another way would be to have an active open source community that just
writes the support for traffic control upstream if they need it. I
actually prefer that to a plugin API.
Alex
[Qemu-devel] Re: libvirt vs. in-qemu management, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/04/06
[Qemu-devel] Re: libvirt vs. in-qemu management, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/04/06