Re: [Xen-API] Bug (and fix?) for scripts/setup-vif-rules

[Dave Scott <Dave.Scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George,

On May 4, 2013, at 4:14 PM, "George Shuklin" <george.shuklin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On 04.05.2013 16:36, Dave Scott wrote:
>> 
>> Hi George,
>> 
>> About an updated xapi.rpm -- that's an interesting idea. Mike: what do you 
>> think?
>> 
>> My personal opinion is that we would benefit from converging XCP and 
>> XenServer more, so that updates to XenServer contain useful updates to XCP 
>> too. I think the main thing to do is to         split the packages into two 
>> repositories: one containing XCP (ie the majority of the packages) and a 
>> second non-free repo which contains one or two binaries (things like 3rd 
>> party storage array control tools) which would be in XenServer but not 
>> installed by default on XCP (although it would probably be possible to 
>> install them anyway,a bit like the situation with non-free graphics drivers 
>> on Ubuntu)
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
> 
> Em... I'm sorry, but what binaries in XCP are non-free? I thought StorageLink 
> is proprientary and was not planned to be distributes with XCP.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Everything in XCP is free; XenServer is conceptually 
just XCP plus some non-free bits (including storagelink). Unfortunately the 
builds of the free components are _slightly_ different, causing some 
compatibility issues. I'd like to make the builds compatible for important 
components like xen and xapi.

> My main concern is:
> 1) Hypervisor. There was few CVE's recently for xen, so new updates are 
> welcome (actaully, right now for the product we unpacking XenServer fixes, 
> but this is lame)
> 2) Kernel. Same stuff.
> 3) tapdisk/vhdutil, etc. We was really hurt after hitting VHD corruption bug 
> in XCP 1.1 about half year after fix in Xenserver (but not XCP) - about that 
> time we starts to snatch XenServer's one.
> 4) Main problem and main update we can't simply unpack from XenServer - xapi 
> binaries. 
> 
> As far as I understand there is different builds for xapi in XCP and xapi for 
> XenServer. Difference is within licensing and HA functionality (which is 
> XenServer only). Or I'm wrong and binaries are compatible?

I think the binaries are _almost_ compatible. I think we should investigate 
whether we can make them fully compatible, so XCP and XenServer can share rpms 
and share updates.

Cheers,
Dave


_______________________________________________
Xen-api mailing list
Xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api