The key in my email was to ask whether MIME-like specialisations were appropriate either for combining characteristics of an image into a single property.
E.g. <container_type>/<image_type>. The example I provided was <image_type>/<vendor-specific-format> That second example came from observing that a VHD produced by VHDTOOL.exe as posted on MSDN produced a file that could not be understood by XenServer. In contrast, Ken Bell's 'DiscUtils' as posted on Codeplex produced a VHD that worked fine. When I spoke to Ken, he mentioned he'd noticed that VHDTOOL.exe generated a slightly different format. Now, I doubt Microsoft would host a tool that didn’t support their format. Therefore, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a VHD. DL > -----Original Message----- > From: Soren Hansen [mailto:so...@linux2go.dk] > Sent: 02 December 2011 10:16 > To: Donal Lafferty > Cc: Jay Pipes; openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Subject: Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] Proposal: Combine the "container_format" > and "disk_format" fields in 2.0 Images API > > 2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty <donal.laffe...@citrix.com>: > > During October I noticed that Microsoft's vhdtool.exe creates VHDs that > XenServer can't understand. Boy was that painful. > > The underlying problem is that some vhd's should be described as VM > > specific. > > Can you elaborate on this, please? I don't think I understand what "VM > specific" > means. > > -- > Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | > http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
