On 06/12/16 22:06 +0200, Arik Hadas wrote:
Adam,
:) You seem upset. Sorry if I touched on a nerve...
Just out of curiosity: when you write "v2v has promised" - what exactly do you
mean? the tool? Richard Jones (the maintainer of virt-v2v)? Shahar and I that
implemented the integration with
Adam,
Just out of curiosity: when you write "v2v has promised" - what exactly do
you mean? the tool? Richard Jones (the maintainer of virt-v2v)? Shahar and
I that implemented the integration with virt-v2v? I'm not aware of such a
promise by any of these options :)
Anyway, let's say that you were g
On 05/12/16 11:17 +0200, Arik Hadas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Nir Soffer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Shmuel Melamud wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently working on integration of virt-sysprep into oVirt.
>
> Usually, if user creates a template from a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Sandro Bonazzola
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Fabian Deutsch
> wrote:
>
>> Heya,
>>
>> the size went down to ~800MB again in master.
>>
>> The best opportunity to reduce the size is to trim the dependency tree.
>> The lowest hanging fruit is to g
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> Heya,
>
> the size went down to ~800MB again in master.
>
> The best opportunity to reduce the size is to trim the dependency tree.
> The lowest hanging fruit is to get rid of the (partial) X11 stack
> which we are pulling in.
>
>
You can d
Heya,
the size went down to ~800MB again in master.
The best opportunity to reduce the size is to trim the dependency tree.
The lowest hanging fruit is to get rid of the (partial) X11 stack
which we are pulling in.
- fabian
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> I'm sure it was l
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Ryan Barry wrote:
> Just a comment --
>
> Cursory testing shows that makedeltarpm is not good at this -- it doesn't
> know how to examine the contents of the OVA (or they're too different). The
> delta RPM between 4.0 (~1GB) and 4.1-pre (~1.45GB) is 1.41GB. With or
> On 6 Dec 2016, at 11:09, Martin Sivak wrote:
>
> Do you think this might be relevant? Our CI started failing because a
> necessary Qemu version is not available. And note that it is asking
not to this patch, this change was merged 2 weeks ago
> for qemu-kvm 2.7.0 (not 2.6 as you said).
on F
> On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:58, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
>
> Dear developers,
> patch requiring 7.3-based qemu-kvm machine type[1] has been merged to master
> For using the 4.1 Cluster Level please make sure you have qemu-kvm-rhev 2.6
> and libvirt 2.0+ on RHEL 7.3, CentOS 7.3 prerelase repo ([2], I
Do you think this might be relevant? Our CI started failing because a
necessary Qemu version is not available. And note that it is asking
for qemu-kvm 2.7.0 (not 2.6 as you said).
08:55:18 Error: Package: vdsm-4.18.999-1075.gitaee36a3.fc24.x86_64
(ovirt-master-snapshot)
08:55:18Require
Dear developers,
patch requiring 7.3-based qemu-kvm machine type[1] has been merged to master
For using the 4.1 Cluster Level please make sure you have qemu-kvm-rhev 2.6 and
libvirt 2.0+ on RHEL 7.3, CentOS 7.3 prerelase repo ([2], I suppose[3] too, and
[4]), or Fedora 24+virt-preview repo
If you
Arik Hadas writes:
> Right, but let's be fair and present the benefits of v2v-jobs as well:
> 1. it is the simplest "infrastructure" in terms of LOC
> 2. it is the most efficient mechanism in terms of interactions between the
> engine and VDSM (it doesn't require new verbs/call, the data is attac
12 matches
Mail list logo
