[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-API] UUID for Domain-0 ?
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 21:49 +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:11:25PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:47:10PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > > Currently XenD/XenStore doesn't provide a real UUID for Domain-0 - its > > > > always fixed at 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000. If the new API is > > > > to allow management of multiple hosts having all their Dom-0's with a > > > > null UUID is going to complicate things somewhat for users of the API. > > > > > > Yes, that's a good point. The reason we did that initially was to ensure > > > that > > > your domain 0 UUID didn't change across a reboot (there was a reason we > > > needed > > > that, but I can't remember what it was right now). > > > > > > I think that we could arrange for domain 0 to get a real but fixed UUID. > > > > > > > Is it intended to expose the real UUID of the host being managed. Most > > > > machines I've encountered have a UUID embedded in the SMBIOS which would > > > > be the obvious thing to use for Domain-0 > > > > > > > > $ lshal | grep smbios.system.uuid > > > > smbios.system.uuid = 'EF861801-45B9-11CB-88E3-AFBFE5370493' (string) > > > > > > Well, the host itself needs a UUID too -- wouldn't the SMBIOS UUID be more > > > appropriate for the host, rather than domain 0? > > > > Well if the fully virt guests are going to have their have UUID exposed > > via SMBIOS, and bare metal OS already uses SMBIOS, then Domain-0 should > > be consistent, hence SMBIOS too (yes I'm conveniently ignoring paravirt, > > which has no SMBIOS at this time) Why would we need different UUID for > > the host, vs Domain-0 OS ? My concern existing userspace tools requiring > > a UUID for the host/OS currently use SMBIOS, so its desirable to have > > then 'just work' in virtualized env without changes. My patches for HVM domU's are progressing again finally. Trying to send out by tomorrow evening. > > I think that the host and domain 0 are significantly different things, and > certainly should have different UUIDs. It would be ever so confusing if there > was an instance of Vm and an instance of Host with the same UUID. Hrm, this is interesting. Redundant control partitions would present a real problem if the hardware UUID was used to identify each of them. It's easy to generate UUID's -- storing a uuid for each control partition in xenstore or a file would probably work fine, as long as out-of-band tools can figure out which host maps to each control partition's uuid. This is problematic without more agent-like code, unless xend helps with the correlation. Andrew > > Ewan. > > _______________________________________________ > xen-api mailing list > xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api _______________________________________________ xen-api mailing list xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |