Hi Everyone,

I think these are great ideas. Having "Live Migration", clustering in
the Control domain, cluster agents in the guest domains, etc. are
definitely major "must haves" for customers. I'd like to add a few
more:

1. Centralized Management for LDom's. People are going to have anywhere
from dozens to thousands of these servers. They need a centralized way
to manage them.

2. Secure Virtual Console. The access to the virtual consoles should be
secured to keep unauthorized users/operators/etc from accessing the
console of a guest domain that might contain sensitive information. Not
sure if this should be done through RBAC, but it should be capable of
being centrally managed.

3. Bridged? Virtual Switches. It would be nice to take two or more
virtual switches and have them deal with link failure. This would
prevent to use of IPMP in a guest domain and save valuable IP's for a
company. So basicly you could have e1000g0 and e1000g2 turned into
VSW's that can be connected to be on the same VLAN, but have two paths
out to the real network. Auto-detect link failure and redirect traffic.
This could help save customers a lot of extra costs and complexity.

4. ldm list-diskio. Show the amount of disk I/O per ldom. Break out the
vdsdevs per ldom.

5. ldm list-netio. Show the amount of network I/O per ldom. Break out
the vnets per ldom. Also show the traffic flowing in/out of the vsw's.

6. ldm reset-ldc <channel id>. Reset an ldc that is hung.

Those are just some ideas I was thinking about this week. I'll enter
some RFE's around this today.


--- Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote:

> First let me say, Welcome to Opensolaris.org!!
> 
> I've been patiently waiting to let you know what I would like to see.
> 
> 1) The ability to have more than one LDOM run on given set of HW
> core/threads. (Such that they can dynamically share resources.)
> 
> 2) Clustering with Vmotion like abilities (the ability to migrate a
> running VM from one server to another.
> 
> 3) Clustering with hot failover of running LDOMs
> 
> 4)  After #1 is complete, I would like to see LDOM modified to
> support
> Sparc chips without Virtual-extensions. (e.g. - UltraSparc II, III,
> IV, V)
> 
> Are you guys thinking along the same lines?
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian
> --
> - Brian Gupta
> 
> P.S. - Note to self, it's LDOMs-discuss, not LDOM-discuss.. ;)
> 
> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
> _______________________________________________
> ldoms-discuss mailing list
> ldoms-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss
> 


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Systems Engineer
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/
http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
unixconsole at yahoo.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

Reply via email to