Hi Dave, * Dave Miner (dminer at opensolaris.org) wrote: >>> 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?).
Do we know this? I haven't heard that Hyper-V is even going to support OVF (though I'll look into it). I was under the impression that we had to support VirtualBox and xVM, other hypervisors that supported OVF *should* work depending on how closely they follow the spec but were more of a 'nice to have' but not a requirement. If those platforms are really a requirement, then that's fine but we'll need to do a lot more research to see what those products OVF support story looks like. > ... >>> 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. Excellent. Thanks. >>> 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. That's possible provided that this standard image has some way for incorporating custom packages and other customizations. >>> 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. That makes sense. I'll work on coming up with something more interesting. Thanks Dave. -- Glenn
