[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: 0/10: Merge xenfb & xenconsoled into qemu-dm
On 16/8/07 16:34, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> My own feeling is that the xenfb merge is very sensible, but I don't see >> much of a win from merging xenconsoled, and the downside is that you then >> need a qemu-dm instance for every PV guest. I think that requiring qemu-dm >> for more 'featureful' PV guests -- framebuffer, USB, etc -- is well and >> good, but someone who is running more minimal domU configurations -- >> console, net, block -- isn't going to want or welcome the rather unnecessary >> per-domU overhead of qemu-dm. > > Yep, I can see that would be useful for some folks working in constrained > environments. Of course they probably don't want the XenD overhead either, > but that's a can of worms I won't get into right now ;-) At least the xend overhead is largely one-off rather than per-domain. > Thinking about this, I think I can easily re-work the last two patches so > that xenconsoled will continue to process the guest consoles, if-and-only-if > the guest doesn't have a QEMU instance already doing it. That would give us > choice between both deployment scenarios per-guest. That seems fair. The guest-console-over-vnc scenario is a compelling argument for supporting console-in-qemu as an option. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |