Glenn Lagasse wrote: > Hi Dave, > > * Dave Miner (dminer at opensolaris.org) wrote: >> Glenn Lagasse wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I've uploaded the functional specification for this project to be >>> reviewed at: >>> >>> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/VMC >>> >> Thanks for getting this out. >> >> A big -1 to fixed-width fonts in documents. > > Sorry about that. I've corrected it and future revisions will look a > bit nicer. > >> 1.2 This is somewhat wishy-washy about what to expect for >> non-VirtualBox hypervisors. I'd suggest a clear statement of whether >> it's in scope (and hence expected to be tested) or not, as specifically >> as you can be. > > The only other bona-fide interested consumer I know of is the xVM team. > That said, it should be possible for VMWare clients to use the images > since it supports OVF but I haven't actually tried it. I'm not aware of > any requirement that we make our images work with VMWare so I believe I > can reword this to talk about VB and xVM exclusively. Unless anyone > else knows of other required hypervisors we have to work with. >
Actually, I'm pretty darn certain marketing will expect that VMWare will be a tested, supported VM technology. Probably whatever Microsoft's thing is called, too (Hyper-V?). ... >> 2.2 Seems like we should talk to the LDOMs team to see what their plans >> are in this area, just to be certain we're not missing alignment. > > I can do that. Do you happen to know who I'd contact for starters? > Liam Merwick would be the person to start with. >> 4.0 (and 6.1.1) I'm not entirely clear; will we be providing for >> download a pre-built image suitable for use to get started, or is the >> user expected to build one? > > I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking if we're going to start > providing pre-built VM images based on slim_cd? > I meant a pre-built bootable image so that perhaps the "AI image creation" step wouldn't be necessary. Looking at the flow diagram, I'd expect that to usually be a standard image we can provide rather than requiring it to be built bespoke in all cases. >> 6.1.1 This seems unlikely to be the "default" case. The slim CD package >> list is not that interesting to most of the use cases I would expect to >> be applied here. Suggest this needs some discussion with the JeOS folks >> around what a good default scenario might be. > > I agree that it's not really interesting, but it does serve as a fine > description of a plain vanilla scenario that outlines the process. I > could 'spice' it up and turn the image into say a Developer's image that > contained ss-dev, gcc-dev and whatnot. > I'd just suggest defining a default case which is actually of interest to users, because there is potentially more involved in that default case, and perhaps more opportunities for optimization, than with your proposed default case. Dave
